Mr. Padam Kumar Jain Prop: Prateek ... vs Cs Anagha Anasingaraju Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2082 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Limitation for an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 runs from the date on which the impugned order is pronounced, and not from the date on which the appellant comes to know of that order. The Appellate Tribunal's power to condone delay in filing such an appeal is confined to the fifteen-day period permitted by the proviso to Section 61(2); delay beyond that period cannot be condoned, and an application seeking condonation of such delay is to be dismissed, with the appeal consequently rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Padam Kumar Jain Prop: Prateek Trading Company Aklera ...Appellant
Versus
CS Anagha Anasingaraju RP of Hindustan Eco-Tech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked. For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
04.03.2025: I.A. No. 7764 of 2024: This is an application praying for
condonation of delay. This appeal has been filed against order dated
09.05.2024 by which order the Adjudicating Authority has approved the
Resolution Plan. Order was pronounced on 09.05.2024. This appeal has
been e-filed on 02.07.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant submits that the Appellant
was not party to the proceeding, hence, he was not aware of the order and he
came to know only on 17.05.2024 when the Resolution Professional sent an
email to the Appellant. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that he
has filed claim as Operational Creditor and he has been given a meagre
amount of only 1%. If the limitation is calculated from the date when he came
to came to know of the order, the appeal has been filed within condonable
period.
Cont'd.../ 2
3. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
Appellant and perused the record.
4. The order impugned indicate that order was pronounced on
09.05.2024. Limitation for filing an appeal commences from date of
pronouncement, this issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the judgment of "V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Ors.
(2022) 2 SCC 244" where it was held that limitation for filing the appeal shall
commence from date of pronouncement of the order. Coming to know about
the passing of order subsequently cannot be a ground to condone the delay
nor the running of the limitation shall be arrested till the appellant comes to
know about the order. We, thus, are of the view that delay is beyond
condonable period. Our jurisdiction to condone delay is limited to only 15
days under Section 61(2) proviso. Delay being beyond condonable period
cannot be condoned. Delay Condonation Application is dismissed. In result,
memo of appeal is also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2082 of 2024
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