Milinnd Pires vs Sunil Chandrao Marne And Anr

IN THE MATTER OF: Milinnd Pires ...Appellant Versus Sunil Chandrao Marne & Anr. ...Respondents

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Amar Dave, Mr. Abhinav Agrawal and Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. R. K. Ruhil, Mr. Rahul Kasana, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Ravi Raghunath Mr. Aakashi Lodha, Mr. Aniruth Purusothman, Mr. Dhiren S. Shah, Liquidator for R-2.

ORDER

14.09.2022: I.A. No. 2957 of 2022 This is an application seeking

condonation of 40 days delay in filing the appeal.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.04.2022 passed in

I.A. No. 969 of 2022 in CP (IB) 1615/MB/2017. The appeal against the said

order has been filed by the Appellant on 24.06.2022.

3. In the application filed for condonation of delay, it has been submitted that

the Appellant got to know about the order recently and uploaded in the last week

of month of May, 2022 and certified copy of the same was issued on 19.06.2022,

whereas para 6 of the application, it has been stated that the certified copy was

applied on 08.06.2022 and copy of the order was issued on 09.06.2022.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1024 of 2022 & I.A. No.2956 of 2022 1

4. When we looked into the certified copy which has been filed with the

appeal, certified true copy was issued on 09.06.2022 as a free of cost copy.

5. Learned Counsel for the Liquidator submitted that the order dated

18.04.2022 was received by the Liquidator through her Counsel on 20.04.2022

and a free of cost copy was sent to the Liquidator on 02.05.2022. Hence, the

ground taken in the application that it was uploaded in the last week of month

of May, 2022 is not correct. It is further submitted that when the order was

pronounced on 18.04.2022, the Appellant was present before the Adjudicating

Authority which fact is not disputed by the Appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in (2022)2 Supreme Court Cases 244 in V.Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat

and Power Limited and Others in paragraph 35 has held:

"35. The appellant was present before NCLT on

31.12.2019 when Interim relief was denied and the

miscellaneous application was dismissed. The

appellant has demonstrated no effort on his part to

secure a certified copy of the said order and has relied

on the date of the uploading of the order (12.3.2020)

on the website. The period of limitation for filing an

appeal under Section 61(1) against the order of NCLT

dated 31.12.2019, expired on 30.1.2020 in view of the

thirty-day period prescribed under Section 61(2). Any

scope for a condonation of delay expired on 14.2.2020,

in view of the outer limit of fifteen days prescribed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1024 of 2022 & I.A. No.2956 of 2022 2 under the proviso to Section 61(2). The lockdown from

23.3.2020 on account of the COVID-19 Pandemic and

the suo motu order of this Court has had no impact on

the right of the appellant to institute an appeal in this

proceeding and NCLAT has correctly dismissed the

appeal on limitation. Accordingly, the present appeal

under Section 62 IBC stands dismissed."

6. In the present case, there is no case of the Appellant that within the

period of limitation, a certified copy was applied. The appeal admittedly has

been filed beyond 40 days from the date of the order and the power to condone

the delay vested with this Tribunal being only 15 days u/s 61(2) of the Code,

we are unable to condone the delay of 40 days, as prayed in the application.

We, thus, are of the view that application for condonation of delay deserve to

be rejected and hereby dismissed. Memo of appeal stands rejected.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

ss/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1024 of 2022 & I.A. No.2956 of 2022 3