Directorate Of Enforcement vs Committee Of Creditors & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 775 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under the limitation period for an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, time runs from the date the impugned order is pronounced, and it is not suspended until the appellant acquires knowledge of the facts material to filing the appeal, so Section 17 of the Limitation Act does not postpone the commencement of limitation on the appellant's asserted late discovery of the related-party facts. An application for condonation of delay is to be rejected where the appellant's only ground is late knowledge of the relevant facts, and no other substantive ground for condonation is shown.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Directorate of Enforcement ...Appellant
Vs.
Committee of Creditors & Ors. ...Respondents
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Prateek Kumar, Ms. Vaishnavi Chillakuru, Ms. Moha Paranjpe, Advocates
For Respondent: Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shashank Agarwal, Advocate for R-2 Mr. Siddhant Kant, Ms. Charu Bansal, Mr. Krishan Singhal, Advocates for R-1
ORDER
04.07.2023: Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Varun Mishra appearing for the
Appellant.
IA No. 2605 of 2023 - This is an application praying for condonation of
delay of 789 days in filing the appeal. The order impugned was passed by the
Adjudicating Authority on 14.12.2020. The Appellant has filed this appeal on
13.03.2023.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant came to know
about the related party only in the end of the March, 2023 and then appeal was
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 775 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2605 of 2023 1 filed on 13.03.2023. He submit that limitation for filing the appeal shall run
only when Appellant came to know about the related party. He relies on Section
17 of the Limitation Act.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has refuted the submission and
submitted that limitation for filing the appeal starts on the date when the order
was pronounced.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance on the judgement
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. & Ors.
(2022) 2 SCC 244.
6. It is further submitted that Appeal filed by the Appellant with similar
delays has already been rejected. Reference has been made to the order of this
Tribunal dated 16.11.2022 in Comp. Appl.(AT)(Ins.) No. 1087 of 2022 in the matter
of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Prashant Jain.
7. We have considered the submission of the Learned Counsel for the
Appellant and perused the records.
8. The limitation to file the appeal as per the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in V.Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. & Ors. (2022) 2 SCC 244
shall commence when the order was pronounced, the said limitation cannot be
remain suspended till the Appellant came to know about the relevant facts for
filing the appeal.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 775 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2605 of 2023 2
9. We do not find any substance in the submission of the Appellant on basis
of which the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned. The delay condonation
application is dismissed. The memo of appeal is rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
ss/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 775 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2605 of 2023 3
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