Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Jagwani Group Of Industries Pvt. Ltd. & ... vs Aryavart Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal11 September 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Appellate Tribunal's power under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not extend to condoning delay in filing an appeal beyond fifteen days after the expiry of the thirty-day limitation period, however satisfied the Tribunal may be that sufficient cause has been shown; such an appeal, filed outside that outer limit, must be dismissed.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.938 - 939 of 2019IN THE MATTER OF:

Jagwani Group of Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants

Versus

Aryavart Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present:

For Appellants: Advocate present but did not mark appearance

For Respondents: None

ORDER

11.09.2019 This Appeal has been preferred by Jagwani Group of

Industries Pvt. Ltd. along with Harish Bhagwandas Jagwani, Director of the

Jagwani Group of Industries Pvt. Ltd. against Order dated 19th March, 2018

passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal,

Mumbai Bench). By the said Order, an Application under Section 9 of

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code - in short) filed by M/s.

Panama Petrochem Limited (Operational Creditor) was admitted against

Aryavart Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor). The Appellant has also

challenged the Order dated 15th April, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating

Authority whereby the plan submitted in exercise with powers conferred by

Section 29A, the resolution plan approved by Committee of Creditors has

been approved. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant

submits that as Appellant entered into an agreement for sale with

the Corporate Debtor on 16th March, 2018, pursuant to which the land in -2-

question was required to be transferred in terms of the said agreement, a

sum of Rs.30 Lakhs was paid against sale consideration of Rs.3 Crores for

which mode of payment have been shown in the said agreement.

It is submitted that the Appellant had no knowledge about the initiation

of the corporate insolvency resolution process which was initiated on 19th

March, 2018. The Appellants had also no knowledge of the Impugned Order

dated 15th April, 2019.

However, such submissions cannot be accepted, in view of terms of

agreement as placed on record by the Appellants. From the said agreement

dated 16th March, 2018, we find that the complete sale transaction was to be

made and absolute sale deed was to be executed by the end of 31st May, 2018

or within 30 days of the transfer letter duly signed by M.I.D.C. Dhule.

Naturally, one will expect that Appellants, on execution of the sale deed would

have moved the Corporate Debtor on the basis of terms of agreement of

absolute sale deed which was to be completed on 31st May, 2018. The

Corporate Debtor had proceeded on corporate insolvency resolution process

having been initiated on 19th March, 2018. Assets and records of the

Corporate Debtor came under the management of the Interim Resolution

Professional/Resolution Professional and it would be believed that for about

100 days, the Appellant had no knowledge of the same. In any case, proviso

to sub-Section (2) of Section 61 of the I&B Code does not empower the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.938 - 939 of 2019 -3-

Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay beyond 15 days after the expiry of

the period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause shown.

Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief. However, this Order will not

come in the way of Appellant to move the appropriate authority for relief.

The Appeal is dismissed for the aforesaid reasons.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)

/rs/sk

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.938 - 939 of 2019

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