Chetnaben Bharatkumar Patel vs Bank Of Baroda & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2052 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate limitation period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is 30 days from the date of the impugned order, extendable by the Appellate Tribunal by a further period not exceeding 15 days on sufficient cause being shown, so that an appeal filed beyond 45 days from the order cannot be entertained and the Tribunal has no power to condone any delay beyond that outer limit. The time taken in obtaining a certified copy of the impugned order is excluded in computing the limitation period, but the excluded period is confined to the days during which the copy was actually under preparation, and a party's wait for a free copy before applying for a paid one does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Chetnaben Bharatkumar Patel ...Appellants
Versus
Bank of Baroda & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Bhavsar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Mr. Shivam Saini and Mr. Praful Rawat, Advocates for R-1.
With
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2055 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7694 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF: Naranbhai Hemabhai Patel ...Appellants
Versus
Bank of Baroda & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Bhavsar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Mr. Shivam Saini and Mr. Praful Rawat, Advocates for R-1.
With
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2104 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7836 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF: Madhuben Gandalal Patel ...Appellants
Versus
Bank of Baroda & Anr. ...Respondents
Cont'd.../ 2
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Bhavsar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Mr. Shivam Saini and Mr. Praful Rawat, Advocates for R-1.
With
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2106 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7840 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF: Pashiben Naranbhai Patel ...Appellants
Versus
Bank of Baroda & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Bhavsar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Mr. Shivam Saini and Mr. Praful Rawat, Advocates for R-1.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 08.01.2025: I.A. No. 7688 of 2024, 7694 of 2024, 7836 of 2024 and
7840 of 2024: These applications have been filed praying for condonation
of delay of 49 days in filing the appeal. The order impugned was pronounced
on 25.07.2024 and the present appeals have been e-filed on 12.10.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant(s) submits that certified copy was
applied on 23.08.2024, which was received only on 28.08.2024 and when the
time is calculated from 28.08.2024, there is no delay in filing the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent opposes the submission of learned
counsel for the Appellant and submits that even if benefit of 6 days' period is
given during which certified copy was under preparation, delay in filing the
appeal is more than 45 days which is beyond condonable period.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2052, 2053, 2104 & 2106 of 2024 3
4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
5. The order impugned was pronounced on 25.07.2024. The limitation
for filing the appeal shall commence from the date of pronouncement and
after giving benefit of period from 23.08.2024 to 28.08.2024 during which the
certified copy was under preparation, the appeal which was filed on
12.10.2024 was filed beyond 45 days, which was beyond condonable period.
The explanation which has been given by learned counsel for the Appellant
that the Appellant was waiting for the free certified copy and since it was not
received he applied for certified copy on 23.08.2024 does not give any
sufficient cause for condonation of delay which is beyond condonable period.
6. Our jurisdiction to condone delay is limited to only 15 days as per
Section 61(2) proviso. The delay in filing the appeals being beyond 45 days
i.e. beyond the condonable period, we are unable to condone the delay.
Hence, the delay condonation application is rejected. In result, Memo of
Appeals are also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2052, 2053, 2104 & 2106 of 2024
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free