Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Deepak Kulkarni vs Bank Of Maharashtra

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal17 March 2023Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an earlier appeal challenging the same order has already been dismissed as time-barred, the Tribunal will not entertain a second appeal against that order by another person acting for the same corporate debtor, because the subsequent appeal is hopelessly barred by time and an abuse of the process of the Court.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.319 of 2023& I.A. No. 1088 of 2023IN THE MATTER OF:

Deepak Kulkarni ...Appellant

Versus

Bank of Maharashtra ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Yash Chaturvedi, Advocate.

For Respondent: Mr. Nishant Awana, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Abhijeet Sinha and Mr. Varun Kalra, Advocates for RP. Mr. Akshay Bector, Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya and Ms. Raj Sarit Khare, Advocates for SRA.

ORDER

17.03.2023: I.A. No. 1088 of 2023: This is an application praying for

condonation of delay of 1244 days. This appeal has been filed on 21.02.2023

against the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

2. In the application for condonation of delay it has been mentioned that

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 414 of 2022 was filed by the Directors of the

Corporate Debtor in August, 2021 against the same order, which Appeal was

dismissed by this Tribunal by order dated 19.04.2022.

3. We fail to see that when an appeal against the same order on the ground

that it is barred by time was dismissed since delay condonation application

was rejected, how another appeal can be filed by one Director challenging the

Cont'd.../ -2-

same order. The earlier appeal although was filed in the name of the

Corporate Debtor but was signed by the Director. Hence, there is no occasion

to file this Appeal again against the same order. The Appeal is hopelessly

barred by time and is abuse of the process of the Court. We dismiss the

application as barred by time. The Memo of Appeal is rejected.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 319 of 2023

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