Indian Bank vs Linkhouse Industries Ltd

IN THE MATTER OF: Indian Bank ...Appellant

Versus

Poonam Resorts Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Ms. Anju Bhushan Gupta, Mr. Aditya Goel, Mr. Sanyam Gupta, Advocates. For Respondents :

With

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 279 of 2025 & I.A. No. 1065 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: Indian Bank ...Appellant

Versus

Linkhouse Industries Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Ms. Anju Bhushan Gupta, Mr. Aditya Goel, Mr. Sanyam Gupta, Advocates. For Respondents :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

04.03.2025: In these appeals application for condonation of delay in

filing the appeal has been filed being I.A. No.1062 of 2025 in Company Appeal

(AT) (Insolvency) No.278 of 2025 and I.A. No.1065 of 2025 in Company Appeal

(AT) (Insolvency) No.279 of 2025. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.278

Cont'd.../ 2

of 2025 has been filed against order passed by the Adjudicating Authority

dated 19.12.2023, which order is as follows:

"ORDER

Counsel for the OC filed valid AFA for IP. The above matter was already heard. Therefore, Reserved for orders."

2. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.279 of 2025 has been filed against

order dated 18.01.2024, which is as follows:

"ORDER

Counsel for the OC filed valid AFA for IP. The above matter was already heard. Therefore, Reserved for orders."

3. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.278 of 2025 was e-filed on

26.12.2024 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.279 of 2025 was also

e-filed on 26.12.2024. Both the appeals have been filed beyond the

condonable period.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant sought to contend that Appellant is

not aggrieved by the order reserving order, however, Appellant is aggrieved

since no order has been delivered so far and Appellant is not asking for

dereserving of the order.

5. Section 61 of the Code provides for filing of appeal against an order

passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Section 61 of the Code is as follows:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.278 & 279 of 2025 3

"61. Appeals and Appellate Authority - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013 (18 of 2013), any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal:

Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days.

(3) An appeal against an order approving a resolution plan under section 31 may be filed on the following grounds, namely:

(i) the approved resolution plan is in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force;

(ii) there has been material irregularity in exercise of the powers by the resolution professional during the corporate insolvency resolution period;

(iii) the debts owed to operational creditors of the corporate debtor have not been provided for in the resolution plan in the manner specified by the Board;

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.278 & 279 of 2025 4

(iv) the insolvency resolution process costs have not been provided for repayment in priority to all other debts; or

(v) the resolution plan does not comply with any other criteria specified by the Board.

1[(4) An appeal against a liquidation order passed

under section 33, or sub-section (4) of section 54L, or sub-section (4) of section 54N, may be filed on grounds of material irregularity or fraud committed in relation to such a liquidation order.

(5) An appeal against an order for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process passed under sub-section (2) of section 54-O, may be filed on grounds of material irregularity or fraud committed in relation to such an order.]"

6. The cause of action to file any appeal emanates from order passed by

the Adjudicating Authority. As submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant

cause of action in these appeals are the order passed by the Adjudicating

Authority dated 19.12.2023 and 18.01.2024 and the appeals have been filed

much beyond the condonable period. Learned counsel for the Appellant

contends that there is continuing cause of action for filing of appeal and in

view of the continuing cause of action appeals are not barred by time.

7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

Appellant and perused the record.

8. Cause of action to file an appeal emanates from an order passed by the

Adjudicating Authority, thus, the cause of action arose to the Appellant, as

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.278 & 279 of 2025 5

referred above, when order dated 19.12.2023 and 18.01.2024 were passed.

We do not agree with the submission of the Appellant that there is continuing

cause of action for filing an appeal. In so far as submission of counsel for the

Appellant that order was not delivered, it was always open for the Appellant

to make appropriate application before the Adjudicating Authority. We, thus,

are of the view that both the appeals have been filed beyond the condonable

period. Hence, delay condonation applications deserved to be rejected. Delay

condonation applications; I.A. No.1062 of 2025 and I.A. No.1065 of 2025 are

rejected. In result, Memo of both the appeals are also rejected.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.278 & 279 of 2025