Lt Col. Darpan Kumar vs M/S Sare Gurugram Pvt Ltd And Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal6 October 2023Ashok Bhushan

CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 889 of 2023

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal's power to condone delay in filing an appeal against an order approving a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is confined to the further period of fifteen days permitted by the proviso to Section 61(2), and cannot be extended beyond that outer limit. The time for filing such an appeal is not extended by the appellant's want of knowledge of the order, since the period runs from the date of the order and not from the date on which the appellant came to know of it, following the Supreme Court's rejection of that submission in Safire Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The pendency of summer vacation does not suspend or extend the statutory limitation period, where the Registry has issued a notification that filing is permissible during the vacation and the Court sits periodically and entertains e-filed appeals during that time.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 889 of 2023&I.A. No. 3008 of 2023IN THE MATTER OF:

Rakesh Arora & Anr. ...Appellant

Versus

Sare Gurugram Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Advocate Priyanjali Singh For Respondent: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Ms. Wamika Trehan, Ms. Raddhika K. Tandon, Mr. Siddhanth Kumar, Ms. Bhawana Sharma, Ms. Namrata Saroagi, Mr. Kartik Pandey, Advocates Dr. Pankaj Garg, Sr. Advocate for RP Advocate Nikita Garg, for RP With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 892 of 2023

I.A. No. 3019 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Lt. Col. Darpan Kumar ...Appellant

Versus

Sare Gurugram Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 897 of 2023

I.A. No. 3044 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Surender Singh ...Appellant

Versus

Sare Gurugram Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

I.A. No. 3084 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Imran ...Appellant

Versus

Sare Gurugram Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Advocate Priyanjali Singh For Respondent: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Ms. Wamika Trehan, Ms. Raddhika K. Tandon, Mr. Siddhanth Kumar, Ms. Bhawana Sharma, Ms. Namrata Saroagi, Mr. Kartik Pandey, Advocates Dr. Pankaj Garg, Sr. Advocate for RP Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.889, 892, 897, 907/2023 -3-

Advocate Nikita Garg, for RP

ORDER

06.10.2023: I.A. No. 3008 of 2023, I.A. No. 3019 of 2023, I.A. No. 3044

of 2023 and I.A. No. 3084 of 2023 have been filed praying for condonation of

delay in filing these Appeals. These Appeals have been filed against the Order

dated 24th April, 2023 by which Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor has

been admitted. These Appeals have been e-filed on 28th June, 2023, 24th

June, 2023, 24th June, 2023 and 02nd July, 2023, respectively.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appeals were filed

with delay as the Court was closed for summer vacation in the NCLAT and

the Appellants were not aware of the Order and they came to know about the

Order in June, 2023.

3. We have already decided I.A. praying for condonation of delay in filing

the Appeal i.e. C.A. (AT) Ins. No. 990 of 2023 and has referred to Civil Appeal

No. 2212 of 2021 in Safire Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner and Anr. where Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected

the submission that time for filing the appeal shall begin form the date of

knowledge.

4. The second submission which has been raised in these Appeals is that

due to summer vacation, these Appeals could not be filed and 15 days period

shall stand suspended during summer vacation and Appeal could have been

filed after reopening of the Court.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.889, 892, 897, 907/2023 -4-

5. A Notification has already been issued by the Registry of NCLAT that

even in summer vacation, filing of the Appeal was permissible. The said

notification was issued on 30th May, 2023. It is further noticed that even in

the summer vacation, court used to function twice a week and Appeals were

entertained. E-filing was also permitted as per notification issued by the

Registry.

6. We thus are of the view that submission that 15 days period shall stand

suspended during summer vacation cannot be accepted and appeals filed

beyond 15 days period after expiry of the limitation period cannot be

entertained as our jurisdiction to condone the delay is only 15 days as per

Section 61(2) Proviso.

Delay Condonation Applications are dismissed. Consequently, the

Memo of Appeals are rejected.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.889, 892, 897, 907/2023

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