Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Mohit Kumar

IN THE MATTER OF: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Mohit Kumar + Legal Heir of Naresh Kumar, Personal Guarantor ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Manish Jain, Ms. Divya Sharma, Mr. Siddhant Jain, Mr. Manan Jain, Advocates. For Respondent : Ms. Aakriti Mittal, Advocate.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

23.01.2025: I.A. No. 8422 of 2024: This is an application praying for

condonation of 19 days' delay in filing the appeal. Order impugned was

passed on 30.08.2024 and this appeal has been e-filed on 18.10.2024.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that after 30.08.2024 all

Saturdays and Sundays which are falling within 45 days should be excluded.

He submits that if these 8 days are excluded, this application is within

limitation period i.e. within 45 days. Learned counsel for the Appellant has

relied on judgment of this Tribunal in "Sandeep Anand Vs. Gopal Lal Baser;

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.767 of 2023" decided on 03.07.2023.

3. The law as provided in the Limitation Act as well as Rule 3 of the NCLAT

Rules, 2016 is that when last day of limitation falls on a public holiday, the

said period shall be excluded. Thus, when last days of limitation i.e. 30th day

Cont'd..../ 2

is falling on public holiday, benefit of said public holiday can be extended to

the applicant. The submission of the Appellant that all Saturdays and

Sundays which are falling within 45 days should be excluded is clearly an

absurd argument and not as per the benefit available in Limitation Act as well

as Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. The judgment of this Tribunal in

"Sandeep Anand Vs. Gopal Lal Baser" which has been relied by the

Appellant is to the following effect:

"ORDER

I.A. No. 2587 - This is an application praying for condonation of delay. Under Section 61 sub-section (2) proviso, the jurisdiction to condone the delay conferred to this Tribunal is only 15 days. The ground taken in paragraph 5 of the affidavit is that 7 th April was declared as a 'Public Holiday' and 8th and 9th being holiday, the appeal is treated to be filed within 45 days.

2. We are of the view that the benefit as claimed in paragraph 5 is not available which benefit can be availed only with respect to the period of limitation provided with regard to period of 30 days.

3. We, thus, are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal being beyond 15 days, the application praying for condonation of delay has to be dismissed. Consequently, the memo of appeal is rejected."

4. The said judgment in no manner support the submission of the

Appellant, in which case the application was dismissed and benefit of public

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2242 of 2024 3

holidays was not given. We fail to see how that judgment can aid the

submission of the Appellant. Our jurisdiction to condone delay is limited to

15 days only as per Section 61(2) proviso. There being delay of 19 days, which

delay is beyond condonable period, we are unable to condone the delay.

Hence, application for Condonation of Delay is rejected. In result, Memo of

Appeal is also rejected.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2242 of 2024