Mithlesh Devi & Ors vs Asset Care And Reconstruction ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1285 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not extended by the Tribunal merely because the appellant has an arguable case on the merits, including a plea under Section 17 of the Limitation Act; where the delay is not condoned, the Tribunal will not enter into the merits of the appeal, and the appeal is rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Mithilesh Devi & Ors. ...Appellant
Versus
Asset Care & Reconstruction Enterprises Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Advocate Dhananjai Jain, Advocate Omita Unnaarkar For Respondents : Ms. Wamika Trehan, Ms. Raddhika Khanna, Mr. Siddhant Kumar, Advocates for SRA
ORDER
16.10.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 24th April, 2023
approving the Resolution Plan.
3. This Appeal has been e-filed on 04th August, 2023. When the Appeal
was taken on 06.10.2023, Learned Counsel for the Appellant sought for time
to file Additional Affidavit. Additional Affidavit has been filed in support of
Delay Condonation Application.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent submits that Appeals
raising similar issues against the same Corporate Debtor where notices were
issued in Section 5 Application were considered and dismissed by this
Tribunal on 06th October, 2023 in C.A.(AT) Ins. No. 897 of 2023. 2
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Publication by IRP was
made in the papers which have no circulation and there was a fraud. We are
only concerned in this Appeal regarding the Delay in filing the Appeal. The
Application has been filed for condonation of delay which is 82 days.
6. We are unable to condone the above 82 days delay. The present
application is covered by order dated 06.10.2023 passed in Appeals filed by
similar homebuyers challenging the same order.
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on Section 17 of the
Limitation Act and Entry 23. We in the present Appeal are considering the
delay in filing the Appeal, we are unable to enter into merits or entertain any
submission raised by the Appellant on the merits of the case including Section
17 of the limitation act.
8. We thus are of the view that no ground has been made out to condone
the delay. Delay Condonation Application (I.A. No. 4550 of 2023) is dismissed.
Consequently, Memo of Appeal is rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1285 of 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