Employees Provident Fund Organization vs Charu Desai - Resolution Professional ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1110 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's power to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is limited to a further period of 15 days beyond the period prescribed, and an application seeking condonation of a delay exceeding that statutory limit cannot be granted. An appellant whose appeal was already time-barred before 25 March 2020 is not entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court's suo motu order extending limitation during the pandemic, because that benefit does not revive a limitation period that had already expired by that date.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Employee's Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) ...Appellant
Versus
Charu Desai, ...Respondents Resolution Professional of Calyx Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Mr. Divyam Aggarwal, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Pooja Mahajan, Ms. Srishti Kapoor, Advocates for R-3
ORDER
20.09.2022: This is an Application (I.A. No. 3273 of 2022) for
condonation of delay of 49 days in re-filing the Appeal. Ground taken in the
Application is that Learned Counsel for the Appellant was renovating his office
and files got misplaced which was tagged with some other file, due to which
delay caused. Cause shown sufficient. Delay in re-filing the Appeal is
condoned.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 16th April, 2019. This
Appeal was filed before this Tribunal only on 16th June, 2022. There is
inordinate delay in filing the Appeal. The Appellant is not even entitled for the
benefit of Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 03 of
2020 since the Appeal became time barred even before 25th March, 2020. The -2-
power to condone the delay vested with this Tribunal is only of 15 days under
Section 61(2) of the IBC, 2016. Hence the Application (I.A. No. 3293 of 2022)
praying for condonation of delay has to be rejected. No grounds made out for
condonation of delay. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
Consequently, the Memo of Appeal is rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1110 /2022
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