Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Shri Mangesh V Kekre
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 22 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 must be preferred within 30 days from the date of the NCLT order, and the Appellate Tribunal may extend that period by a further 15 days only; an appeal filed beyond that outer limit is barred by time and cannot be entertained, so notice issued in such an appeal is an error and the appeal is to be dismissed as time-barred.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vadodara ...Appellant
Versus Mangesh V. Kekre & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Manish Dhir & Mr. Shivanjay Yadav Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Rajat Lohia, Advocate for R1. Mr. Gursat Singh, Advocate for R2.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
01.06.2022: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant as well as Ld. Counsel for
the Respondent No. 2.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that by order dated 19.01.2021
passed in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 22 of 2021 notices were issued to the Respondents.
The matter was taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2212
of 2021 on which Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its Judgment dated 29.04.2022
has taken the view that the Appeal filed before this Tribunal was barred by time.
In the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.04.2022 operative
portion is as follows:
2
"The Judgement that is relied upon by the Respondent No.1 relates to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, we are concerned with the limitation prescribed by Section 61 of the IBC which fell for consideration of this Court in kalpraj Dharamshi (supra). In the said judgment, it was categorically held by this Court that an appeal against the order of NCLT shall be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date on which the order was passed by the NCLT. The Appellate Tribunal has the power to extend the period of limitation by another 15 days.
In view of the aforesaid judgment, we are of the considered view that the Appellate Tribunal committed an error in issuing notice in an appeal that was filed by Respondent No.1 with delay of 388 days.
The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
In view of the above judgment, this Appeal is to be held as barred by time
and is hereby dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)
suvigya/nn
Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 22 of 2021
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