Rajabhau B Shinde & Anr vs Bank Of India & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1015 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, where an appeal is filed against a liquidation order, the timelines prescribed by the Code carry particular importance, and a delay in refiling an appeal of 267 days cannot be condoned unless the applicant shows sufficient reasons for it; where the delay condonation application discloses no such sufficient cause, the application for condonation of the refiling delay is dismissed and the memo of appeal is rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Raja Bhau B. Shinde & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellants : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neha Agarwal, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Vadlamani Seshagiri, Mr. Agam H Maloo, Advocates and Mr. Prashant Thakre, CS.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
21.05.2024: I.A. No. 3690 of 2024: This is an application praying for
condonation of 267 days' delay in refiling the present appeal. Appellant by
the appeal has challenge the order by which liquidation has been directed.
We do not find any sufficient cause given in the delay condonation
application to condone inordinate delay of 267 days' in refiling the appeal. In
the IBC timelines have its own importance and refiling delay of 267 days'
where liquidation order is under challenge cannot be condoned unless there
are sufficient reasons. We see no grounds made out in the application for
condonation of such an inordinate delay in refiling the Appeal. Application
Cont'd.../ -2-
for Condonation of Refiling Delay is dismissed. In result, Memo of Appeal is
rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical
Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1015 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