Jasjit Singh Sawhney vs Earc & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Mr. Jasjit Singh Sawhney ....Appellant Suspended Director of Net 4 India Ltd. R/o 41, Ravenscroft Avenue, Wembley HA99TJ United Kingdom

Vs.

1. Net 4 India Limited ....Respondent No. 1 Through its Resolution Professional Mr. Vikram Bajaj Having office at: 313 A, Vardhaman North, Ex Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi- 110034. Email: bajaj.vikram@gmail.com 2. EARC (Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. ....Respondent No. 2 Ltd.) Having its office at: Edelweiss House Office CST Road Kalina, Santacruz (East) Mumbai - 400098.

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Prashant Mehta and Ms. Shagun Singh, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Arora and Mr. Mohan Nijhawan, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt and Mr. Sumit Nagpal, Advocates for R-2.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1136 of 2020 & I.A. No. 3043 of 2020 2

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

28.06.2021: Heard Advocate Mr. Prashant Mehta appearing for the

Appellant. He submits that Advocate Ms. Neha Tanwar who had filed

Vakalatnama is from same office where both of them are attached.

2. The Advocate submits that the Appellant is in London and since March,

2021 he has not contacted the Advocates.

3. It is stated that Appellant had contacted COVID in March, 2021 and

since then there is no information from the Appellant.

4. This Appeal has remained pending for deciding the I.A. No. 3043 of 2020

which was filed for condonation of delay.

5. We had issued notice in this Appeal earlier but then we noticed there is

I.A. No. 3043 of 2020 seeking condonation of delay of 624 days in filing of the

Appeal against the Impugned Order dated 08.03.2019. The Appeal was filed on

21.12.2020. The Appellant was called upon to argue question of limitation.

Since then for one reason or the other time has been taken by the Appellant.

6. The application for condonation of delay refers the impugned order

passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi) in Company Petition No. (IB)-409 (PB)/2017 dated

08.03.2019, to claim the judgment was wrong as it relied on Article 62 of the

Limitation Act to calculate Limitation which is not correct in view of Judgment

in the matter of "Babulal Vardharji Gurjar v. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries

Pvt. Ltd.& Anr., Civil Appeal No. 6347/2019 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1136 of 2020 & I.A. No. 3043 of 2020 3

On such ground the delay in filing of Appeal is sought to be condoned. Learned

Counsel for the Respondent is referring to recent Judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court to state that Financial Creditor also relied on balance sheets for

purpose of Limitation.

7. Section 61 (1) & (2) of IBC reads as under:-

(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.

8. It is apparent from the above, the period of Appeal against impugned

order was of 30 days and delay which could be condoned by this Tribunal is

only 15 days. Admittedly the present Appeal has been filed with delay of 624

days. We do not have power to entertain the Appeal as we cannot condone the

delay as sought.

9. This being so, the Appeal being time barred the Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] The Officiating Chairperson

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)

sa/gc Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1136 of 2020 & I.A. No. 3043 of 2020