Kripal Singh Balwant Singh Soundh & Ors vs Tachyon Realty Pvt Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2097 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is limited to a period of 15 days beyond the statutory limitation period; where the delay exceeds that condonable period, the delay condonation application must be rejected and the appeal, not being maintainable within time, is rejected. An Adjudicating Authority's refusal to rectify or review its own order, where it has given reasons for declining to interfere, is not shown to be erroneous by an appellate challenge that discloses no error in those reasons; such an appeal is dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Kripalsingh Balwant Singh Soundh & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Tachyon Realty Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. Yash Anand, Advocate For Respondent : None With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2148 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7779 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF: Kripalsingh Balwant Singh Soundh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Tachyon Realty Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Yash Anand, Advocate For Respondent : None ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
18.12.2024 I.A. No.7818 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)
No. 2097 of 2024 This is an application praying for condonation of 21
delay in filing the appeal. Order impugned was passed on 21.06.2024 and
this appeal has been e-filed on 11.08.2024. Our jurisdiction to condone the
delay is limited to 15 days only as per Section 61(2) proviso. The delay in filing
the appeal being beyond our condonable period, the delay condonation
application need to be rejected. The delay condonation application is rejected.
Memo of appeal is also rejected.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2148 of 2024
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.07.2024 passed
in IA-3749(MB)2024. Appellant has filed an I.A. seeking Speaking to
Minutes/Rectification of the order dated 21.06.2024.
The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application and made
following observations at paragraph 3:
"...
3. This Bench observes that on 21.06.2024, at the end of the Board, Mr. Yahya Batatawala, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the Financial Creditor appeared and requested for withdrawal of the Petition. On the request, the CP was dismissed as withdrawn. This Bench feels that at this stage, this Bench is not inclined to interfere in the order dated 21.06.2024. Hence, IA-3749(MB)2024 is dismissed."
We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority
refusing to rectify the order dated 21.06.2024. The Adjudicating Authority has
given ample reason for rejecting the IA-3749(MB)2024. There is no merit in
this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) pks/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2097, 2148 of 2024 2 of 2
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