Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Dr Amit Upadhyay vs Vijay Pitambar Lulla Resolution ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal26 May 2022

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The delay of 14 days in re-filing a Memo of Appeal, occasioned by the time the appellant needed to cure office-noted defects from a distant location, is condoned on the ground that the reasons stated in the application are sufficient.

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

Judgment

As delivered

THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHIInterlocutory Application No. 1637/2022Un-numbered Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.___/2022(F.No.29.04.2022/NCLAT/UR/02179In the matter of:

Mr. Amit Upadhyay .... Appellant

Versus Vijay Pitambar Lulla, Resolution Professional of Ahinsa Builtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .... Respondents

Appearance: Arjun Padhiyar, Advocate for the Appellant.

26.05.2022

This hearing has been held through video conferencing.

This is an application to extend the time granted for curing the defects.

2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant filed the Memo of Appeal on 28.04.2022 and the Office after scrutiny of the Memo of Appeal on 29.04.2022, intimated the defects to the Appellant on the same day and returned the Memo of Appeal to the Appellant on 02.05.2022. The Appellant re-filed the Memo of Appeal on 20.05.2022. It is stated in the Interlocutory Application (IA) that as the Appellant is placed at Mumbai and in order to cure the defects the counsel required indulgence and assistance from the Appellant to remove the defects, which took some time. Hence, there is delay of 14 days in refiling the Memo of Appeal, so the same may be condoned.

3. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and perused the averments made in the IA as well as Office report.

4. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and for the reasons mentioned in the IA, which are sufficient, the delay in re- filing the Memo of Appeal is hereby condoned.

5. As prayed, list the case before the Hon'ble Bench under the heading 'for admission (fresh case)'.

6. With the aforesaid order, this IA stands disposed of.

(Peeush Pandey) Registrar

Connected matters

Decided by the same order

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