Isolux Corsan India Engineering & ... vs Shailesh Verma Erstwhile Resolution ...

1. Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. through its Liquidator, CA Rajeev Bansal, ...Appellant Reg. No. :IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00226/2017- 18/10425, 2163A, Shri Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana - 135001 Mob: +91 - 9315373372 Email: liquidator.isoluxcorsanindia@gmail.com

Versus

1. Shailesh Verma, Erstwhile Resolution Professional of South East U.P. Power Transmission Company Ltd. Reg. No.:IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00070/2017- 18/10148, E1004, Vijaya Apartments, Mall Road, Ahinsa Khand 2, Near Shanti Gopal Hospital, Indirapuram, Ghaziaad, Uttar Pradesh - 201014 Email: shailesh3108@gmail.com; inseupip@deloitte.co ...Respondent No. 1 Phone No.: +91 8451848800

2. The Committee of Creditors of South East U.P. Power Transmission Company Limited/Corporate Debtor through Resolution Professional, Mr. Shailesh Verma, E1004, Vijaya Apartments, Mall Road, Ahinsa Khand 2, Near Shanti Gopal Hospital, Indirapuram, Ghaziaad, Uttar Pradesh - 201014 Email: shailesh3108@gmail.com; inseupip@deloitte.co ...Respondent No. 2

3. Resurgent Power Ventures Pte. Limited, Resolution Applicant of South East U.P. Power -2-

Transmission Company Limited, UEN:201605156K Business Address: 9 Raffles Place, #26-01, Republic Plaza, Singapore 048619 Also at: Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai - 400001 Email: Randolph.dsouza@resurgentpowerventures.com ...Respondent No. 3

For Appellant: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Nivedita Chauhan, Ms. Jagriti Dori, Ms. Komal Singh, Mr. Abhinav Mishra, Mr. Amrit Singh, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Manmeet Singh, Ms. Natassia Khurana, Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Arvind Nayar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Ms. Wamika Trehan, Ms. Mathili Moondra, Mr. Akshay Goohi, Advocates for R-3

JUDGEMENT

Ashok Bhushan, J:

1. I.A. No. 3349 of 2022 has been filed by the Appellant praying for

condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. This Appeal under Section 61 of

the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "The

Code") has been filed by the Appellant on 01st August, 2022 challenging the

Order dated 15th June, 2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal,

Allahabad Bench, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as "The Adjudicating

Authority") in IA(IB) No. 79/ALD/2022 in CP(IB) No. 107/ALD/2019. By the

Impugned Order, the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the I.A. No.

79/ALD/2022 filed by the Resolution Professional for approval of the

I.A. No. 3349/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1124 of 2022 -3-

Resolution Plan. There being delay in filing the Appeal, I.A. No. 3349 of 2022

has been filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay.

2. The Application I.A. No. 3349 of 2022 states that the present Appeal

has been filed on 47th Day from the date of the Impugned Order. For

condonation of delay, two principal submissions have been made by the

Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

3. Learned Sr. Counsel-Mr. Jayant Mehta appearing for the Appellant

submits that prescribed period for filing an Appeal is 30 days, extendable to

15 days, expired on 30th July, 2022. On 30th July, 2022 and 31st July, 2022,

the Tribunal was closed hence the captioned Appeal has been filed on 01st

August, 2022 at 12:08 AM being the next working day. It is submitted by

virtue of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the filing of the Appeal on 47th

day was within the period of limitation as 30th and 31st July, 2022 being

closed hence the Appeal is not barred by limitation.

4. Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant further submits that

Appellant/Applicant is entitled for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation

Act, 1963. The Appellant had been pursuing I.A. No. 145 of 2022 before the

Adjudicating Authority where the Resolution Plan was challenged on the

ground that Resolution Plan does not provide for the debts of the

Operational Creditors. The proceedings initiated by the Applicant/Appellant

by I.A. No. 145 of 2022 as Civil Proceeding which was prosecuted with due

diligence and good faith. The I.A. No. 145 of 2022 was filed on 11th May,

2022 after filing of I.A. No. 79/2022 by the Resolution Professional seeking

I.A. No. 3349/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1124 of 2022 -4-

approval of the Resolution Plan. I.A. No. 145 of 2022 was heard on 24th May,

2022 and was adjourned to 18th July, 2022 before which date, the Impugned

Order dated 15th June, 2022 was passed approving the Resolution Plan. On

18th July, 2022, the Appellant withdrew his I.A. No. 145 of 2022 and

thereafter the present Appeal has been filed on 01st August, 2022.

5. Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submits that by giving benefit of

Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the present Appeal filed by the Appellant is

well within time.

6. Learned Sr. Counsel-Mr. Arvind Nayar appearing for the Successful

Resolution Applicant refuting the submissions of Learned Sr. Counsel for the

Appellant, contends that the Appeal having been filed on 47th Day i.e.

beyond 45 days, Application for condonation of delay needs to be dismissed.

It is further submitted that on 29th March, 2022 when I.A. No. 79 of 2022

and I.A. No. 80 of 2022 (filed under Section 66 against various parties

including the Appellant) were heard, the Appellant was also present. The

Plan Approval Application was again heard on 12th April, 2022 and 13th

April, 2022 when the Appellant was also present and the Application was

heard and order was reserved on 13th April, 2022. After one month of

reserving the Order on Plan approval Application, I.A. No. 145 of 2022 was

filed. It is further contended that benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act

cannot be claimed by the Appellant.

7. We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the

parties and have perused the record.

I.A. No. 3349/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1124 of 2022 -5-

8. It is an admitted case of the parties that Appeal has been filed by the

Appellant against the Order dated 15th June, 2022 on 01st August, 2022 i.e.

47th Day. The first submission of the Appellant is that 30th and 31st day

being holiday and Court reopened on 1st August, 2022 only, hence filing the

Appeal on 01st August, 2022 is within time. Reliance has been placed on

Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 4 is as follows:

"4. Expiry of prescribed period when Court is closed. - Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the Court is closed, the suit, appeal, or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the date when the Court re-opens.

Explanation.- A Court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day."

9. Section 61 of the IBC, 2016 which provides for limitation of filing an

Appeal. Section 61(2) is as follows:

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

10. The Limitation as prescribed by Section 61(2) is 30 days. Under

proviso, the Appellate Tribunal may allow an Appeal to be filed after said

period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing

the Appeal but such period shall not exceed 15 days. When we look into

Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the prescribed period for filing an

I.A. No. 3349/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1124 of 2022 -6-

Appeal when expires on a day when the Court is closed, the Appeal can be

instituted when the Court reopens. Thirty-Days period for filing the present

Appeal against the Order dated 15th June, 2022 expired on 15th July, 2022.

It is not the case that Court was closed on 15th July, 2022. According to the

Appellant 46th and 47th Day i.e. 30th and 31st July were holidays. For

purposes of extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, the

Limitation has to be expired on the date when Court is closed, present is not

a case where the Limitation expired on a date when the Court was closed

since limitation is of 30 days and not 45 days. The power to condone the

delay of 15 days is exercised by this Tribunal under proviso to Section 61(2)

of the Code but it cannot be said that period for limitation is 45 days. Thus

the present is not a case where benefit of Section 4 can be extended.

11. Now we come to the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant

claiming benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 14 of the

Limitation Act provides as follows:

"14 Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. --

(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

I.A. No. 3349/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1124 of 2022 -7-

(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature.

Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section,--

(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;

(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;

(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction."

12. Section 14 of the Limitation Act in strict terms does not apply to the

Appeal which is clear from the plain reading of Section 14 of the Limitation

I.A. No. 3349/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1124 of 2022 -8-

Act. The limitation act uses the expression "Application", "Suit" and 'Appeal"

differently and the provisions in the schedule providing for limitation of

Application, Suit and Appeal are all different. When we look into Section 4

and Section 12 of Limitation Act, both the sections use three expressions

"Suit, Appeal and Application" whereas Section 14 does not use all the three

expressions rather sub-Section 1 of Section 14 uses the expression "any

suit" and sub-Section 2 of Section 14 uses the expression "any application".

Hon'ble Supreme Court in three Judges Bench in [(2021) 10 SCC 401]

"Kalpraj Dharamshi and Another Vs. Kotak Investment Advisors

Limited and Anr." had occasion to consider applicability of Section 14 in

reference to Section 61 of the IBC, 2016. In the above case, Order of the

Adjudicating Authority was passed on 28th November, 2019 and the Appeal

was filed on 28th February, 2020 and further 15 days came to an end on 12th

March, 2020. However, immediately after the Order was passed on 28th

November, 2019, a writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court on

11.12.2019 which came to be dismissed on 28th January, 2020 on the

ground of having an alternate remedy under Section 61. In the above

context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed section 14 and held that the

Section 14 of Limitation Act is not strictly applicable, the principle

underlying Section 14 would be applicable. In paragraph 65 of the above

Judgment, following has been laid down:

65. In Consolidated Engineering Enterprises (supra), it has been observed, that while considering the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, proper approach will have to be adopted and the

I.A. No. 3349/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1124 of 2022 -9-

provisions will have to be interpreted, so as to advance the cause of justice, rather than abort the proceedings. It has been observed, that an element of mistake is inherent in the invocation of Section 14.

The section, in fact, is intended to provide a relief against the bar of limitation in cases of mistaken remedy or selection of a wrong forum. It has been observed, that the legislature has enacted Section 14 to exempt a certain period covered by a bona fide litigious activity. It has been held, that the equity underlying Section 14 should be applied to its fullest extent and time taken diligently pursuing a remedy, in a wrong court, should be excluded. It could thus be seen, that this Court has in unequivocal terms held, that when a litigant bona fide under a mistake litigates before a wrong forum, he would be entitled for exclusion of the period, during which he was bona fide prosecuting such a wrong remedy. Though strictly, the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to the proceedings before a quasi-judicial Tribunal, however, the principles underlying the same would be applicable i.e. the proper approach will have to be of advancing the cause of justice, rather than to abort the proceedings"

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts of the above case held that in the

Appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal, the provisions of principle under

Section 14 could have been invoked. In paragraph 78 of the above

Judgement, following has been laid down:

"78. In the present case, perusal of the writ petition would reveal, that it was the specific case of KIAL,

I.A. No. 3349/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1124 of 2022 -10-

that its application, objecting to the application of RP for approval of the resolution plan was heard by a Member (Judicial), whereas, the final orders were passed by a Bench consisting of Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical). It has specifically averred, that though an alternate remedy was available to it, it was invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court since the question involved was also with regard to the manner in which the jurisdiction was exercised by NCLT. It could thus be seen, that KIAL was bona fide prosecuting the proceedings before the High Court in good faith. Perusal of the dates referred to herein above would also reveal, that KIAL was prosecuting the proceedings before the High Court with due diligence. Even before the availability of the certified copy, it had knocked the doors of the High Court. The matter before the High Court was hotly contested and ultimately, the petition was dismissed by an elaborate judgment relegating KIAL to the alternate remedy available to it in law. As such, the conditions which enable a party to invoke the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are very much available to KIAL. If the period during which KIAL was bona fide prosecuting the writ petition before the High Court and that too with due diligence, is excluded applying the principles underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the appeals filed before NCLAT would be very much within the limitation. We find, that KIAL would be entitled to exclusion of the period during which it was bona fide prosecuting the remedy before the High Court with due diligence."

I.A. No. 3349/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1124 of 2022 -11-

14. The law is thus well settled that even in cases where Section 14 is not

strictly applicable, the principle underlying Section 14 can be invoked.

15. We thus need to consider as to whether the principle underlying

Section 14 can be invoked in the facts of the present case.

16. In "Kalpraj Dharamshi and Anr." (supra) itself the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has quoted with approval earlier Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in "Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. The Principal

Secretary (Irrigation Department) & Ors." [(2008) 7 SCC 169] which

Judgement has spelt out the condition required to be fulfilled for invoking

Section 14. Paragraph 59 of the Judgement in "Kalpraj Dharamshi and

Anr." is as follows:

"59. The conditions that are required to be fulfilled for invoking the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act have been succinctly spelt out in various judgments of this Court including the one in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and others, which read thus:

"21. Section 14 of the Limitation Act deals with exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction. On analysis of the said section, it becomes evident that the following conditions must be satisfied before Section 14 can be pressed into service:

I.A. No. 3349/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1124 of 2022 -12-

(1) Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party;

(2) The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith;

(3) The failure of the prior proceeding was due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature;

(4) The earlier proceeding and the latter proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue; and

(5) Both the proceedings are in a court.""

17. From the facts of the present case, it is clear that Appellant is claiming

benefit of Section 14 on the basis of I.A. No. 145 of 2022 filed in the same

proceeding i.e. C.P. IB No. 107/ALD/2019. In which proceeding, by

Impugned Order, I.A. No. 79 of 2022 has been allowed. I.A. No. 145 of 2022

was filed by the Appellant. Subsequent to filing of I.A. No. 145 of 2022, this

Application was ultimately withdrawn on 18th July, 2022 by the Learned

Counsel appearing for the Applicant/Appellant. Following Order was passed

on 18th July, 2022 in I.A. No. 318 of 2021 and I.A. No. 145 of 2022:

"IA No. 318/2021 & I.A. No. 145/2022

Ms. Jagriti Dosi, Advocate for the applicant. It is stated by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that since the Resolution Plan has already been approved by this Bench, both these applications are rendered

I.A. No. 3349/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1124 of 2022 -13-

infructuous and she wants to withdraw both these applications.

Keeping in view the statement made by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant IA No. 318/2021 & IA No. 145/2022 are dismissed as withdrawn."

18. Present is not a case where it is even contended that IA No. 145 of

2022 was not entertained due to any defect of the jurisdiction or other cause

of like nature. The Adjudicating Authority before whom the Application was

filed, was fully competent to entertain the Application. We however are of the

view that the principle under Section 14 are attracted when a claimant is

prosecuting "another civil proceeding" the use of expression "another civil

proceeding" as occuring in Section 14(1) and 14(2) is for definite purpose and

object.

19. We have already noticed above the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in "Kalpraj Dharamshi" (supra) where it has been held that authority

underlying Section 14 should be applied to its fullest extent and time taken

diligently pursuing a remedy in a wrong Court should be excluded. Present

is not a case where Applicant can claim that he had filed I.A. No. 145/2022

in a wrong Court. The IA was filed before the same Adjudicating Authority in

the same proceeding being CP (IB) No. 107/ALD/2019 in which Impugned

Order was passed. The applicability of principle of res judicata may be

invoked on different stages of the same proceedings but we have not come

across any authority/precedent where it has been held that in same

proceeding with regard to the Orders passed in different I.As, principles of

Section 14 of Limitation Act can be invoked.

I.A. No. 3349/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1124 of 2022 -14-

20. We thus are of the view that Judgement of "Kalpraj Dharamshi"

(supra) quoted above, the benefit of Section 14 was extended on account of

writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court, the said Judgment was on its own

fact and the said Judgment does not help the Appellant in the present case.

21. We thus are satisfied that the Applicant is not entitled to claim benefit

of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on account of having filed an I.A.

No. 145 of 2022 in the same proceeding i.e. CP(IB) No. 107/ALD/2019 which

was dismissed as withdrawn on the request made by the Appellant.

22. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal to condone the delay is of only 15

days in addition to period of limitation of 30 days. The delay in filing the

Appeal is beyond 15 days after expiring of the limitation, we are unable to

condone the delay in filing the Appeal. In result, I.A. No. 3349 of 2022 is

dismissed. Consequently, the Memo of Appeal stands rejected.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

NEW DELHI 04th November, 2022 Basant

I.A. No. 3349/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1124 of 2022