Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Tax & ... vs Kshtiz Chhawchharia
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1708 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The NCLT's dismissal of I.A. (IBC) No. 1138(KB)2023 on the ground of limitation cannot stand where the application did not raise a limitation issue. The application concerned whether the appellant was to be treated as a secured creditor, and the claim had already been admitted by the liquidator; a limitation finding on such an application was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order is set aside to that extent, with the application remitted to the NCLT for disposal on merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax & GST, C.T & GST Circle, Jharsuguda, Odisha ...Appellant(s)
Versus Kshtiz Chhawchharia Liquidator of Concast Steel ...Respondent(s) Ltd. Present:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anand Dar, Advocate for Appellant.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Kiran Sharma & Ms. Soorjya Ganguli, Advocates for Respondent. ORDER
(HYBRID MODE)
15.07.2025: This appeal is against an impugned order dated 01.05.2024
whereby an I.A. (IBC)/1138(KB)2023 filed by the appellant before the NCLT
was dismissed on grounds of limitation. The impugned order is as under:
"23. Identical prayer as in IA(I.B.C)/1138(KB)2023 has been sought for against the rejection of its claim vide letter dated 24th August, 2022 by the Liquidator, as time barred in terms of Section 38 (1) of the Code.
24. Since the last date was submission of claim was 26th October, 2018 and the claim was lodged on 16th August, 2022 along with Form C due to the reasons mentioned above and having noted the enormous delay in preferring the claim without any proper justification and separate application seeking condonation of delay, we deem it appropriate to reject the application.
25. Accordingly, IA (I.B.C)/560(KB)2023 and IA (I.B.C)/1138(KB)2023 stands dismissed."
2 It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant his application viz
I.A. (IBC)/1138(KB)2023 was dismissed along with I.A. No. 560 of 2023 and
though in I.A. No. 560 of 2023, limitation for filing claim was an issue, but in
I. A. No. 1138 of 2023 the issue was whether the appellant is to be treated as
a Secured Creditor or not and his claim has already been admitted by the
liquidator.
The liquidator is present before us and submits the impugned order is wrong
to an extent the application is dismissed for want of limitation. In the
circumstances, the impugned order to the extent wherein it dismisses I.A. No.
1138(KB) 2023 is set aside. Let this application be now listed before the Ld.
NCLT within a week from today and be disposed of on merits. The appeal
stands disposed of in terms of the above. Pending applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)
Shweta/MD
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