Manikchand vs Satya Prakash Gupta
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 410 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Appellate Tribunal's power to condone delay in filing an appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority is limited to a further period of fifteen days beyond the prescribed limitation period; where the delay exceeds that condonable period, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone it and must reject the delay condonation application and the appeal. Limitation for an appeal under Section 61 runs from the date on which the impugned order is pronounced, not from the date on which the appellant (or a stakeholder) actually comes to know of the order; the appellant's late discovery of the order does not extend the limitation period or furnish a ground for computing it from a later date.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Manikchand, ...Appellant(s) Proprietor of Ambey Trading Company
Versus
Satya Prakash Gupta & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Raunak Satpathy, Advocate. For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 07.04.2025: IA No. 1471 of 2025- This is an application praying for
condonation of refiling delay of 67 days.
Counsel for the Appellant submits that appeal was filed on
05.12.2024 and defect sheet was communicated on 12.12.2024. The defects
involved filing complete set of documents with proper pagination, indexing
and book marking. It is submitted that time was taken in for completing the
said requirement.
It is further submitted that the applicant faced personal difficulties,
including a medical emergency in their family, which contributed to the
delay. We find cause shown sufficient. Refiling delay condoned.
IA No. 1548 of 2025- This is an application praying for condonation
of delay of 91 days in filing of the appeal. Order impugned was pronounced
on 06.08.2024 and this appeal has been e-filed on 05.12.2024.
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that appellant has treated the
limitation from the date when he was communicated the order. It is
submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has passed the impugned order,
which was never communicated to the Appellant. The Appellant became
aware of the same on 11.10.2024, upon noticing a credit of Rs.1,22,530.60
in his account.
The appellant has filed its claim and was the stakeholder in the CIRP.
Order was pronounced on 06.08.2024, all stakeholders who are aggrieved by
the order can file an appeal within the time allowed under Section 61. The
mere fact that the appellant that he came to know about the order only on
11.10.2024 is no ground to grant limitation from the date when he came to
know about the order. Limitation from filing of the appeal begins from the
date when the order is pronounced.
Our jurisdiction to condone the delay is limited to 15 days as per
Section 61 (2) proviso. Delay being beyond condonable period. We can't
condone the delay. Delay condonation application is rejected. Memo of
appeal is also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) sr/nn
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