Regional Provident Fund ... vs Sumit Binani & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 51 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The period for filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is thirty days, and the Appellate Tribunal's power to condone delay in filing such an appeal extends only to a further fifteen days. An appeal filed beyond that outer limit is time-barred and must be dismissed. Where an appellant has not filed an appeal against an approved resolution plan within the prescribed period, subsequent intervening events, such as the setting aside of the approval and later restoration of the plan, do not extend or revive the limitation period and are not relevant to whether the appeal is within time.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II, Rourkela Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office: Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Pamposh Road, Rourkela, Orissa 769004 ...Appellant.
Versus 1. Shri Sumit Binani (Resolution Professional/Liquidator of M/s. Adhunik Metaliks Limited) Lansdowne Towers, 2/1A, Sara Bose Road, Kolkata 700020, West Bengal.
Also at Room No. 6, 4th Floor, 2A, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Commerce House, Kolkata 700013 ...Respondent No. 1.
2. Liberty House Group Metal Two Pvt. Ltd. Regd Office: AT-Chadrihariharpur, PO- Kuarmunda, DIST- Sundargarh - 770039 Email Id: adhunik@libertysteelgroup.in, Anil.gole@gfgalliance.com, Nirmal.sinha@Libertysteelgroup.in, Uday.Gupta@GFGalliance.com Phone: 9769992470
Also at Corporate Office: Maker Chamber No. 6 Office No. 86 8TH Floor, 220 Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbar-400021 Phone: 022-49785714 ...Respondent No. 2.
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Manish Dhir, Advocate.
For Respondent: Mr. Sumit Binani, Party in Person-R-1. Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta and Ms. Shivani Gupta, 2
Advocates for R-2. Ms. Henna George, Caveator, R-2.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
27.01.2021 Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This Appeal has been filed against Impugned Order dated 17th July, 2018
(Annexure-A Page 45) vide which the Adjudicating Authority (National Company
Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench) had approved the Resolution Plan in the matter
of M/s. Adhunik Metaliks Ltd.-Corporate Debtor.
3. It is stated that after this Order dated 17th July, 2018 was passed the
Adjudicating Authority had passed orders dated 09th July, 2019 (Annexure-C
Page 84) and by that order the Adjudicating Authority held that Resolution Plan
has failed and Liquidation Order was passed. It is stated that thereafter there
was Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 724 of 2019 filed (Annexure-B Page 67) and
by Order dated 3rd March, 2020 passed by this Tribunal, the Resolution Plan
dated 17.07.2018 was restored. Learned Counsel for Appellant states that there
is correspondence available to show that the Appellant had moved the Liquidator
with claims of the provident fund but the Liquidator said that the Resolution
Plan has been restored and so he is no more the Liquidator. The Successful
Resolution Applicant is the Respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant
states that because of this reason, the Appellant could not challenge the earlier
Resolution Plan when it was passed due to intervening developments.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 51 of 2021 3
4. Having gone through the material on record, it is apparent that the
Impugned Order dated 17.07.2018 was passed and thereafter it came to set aside
after almost one year on 09th July, 2019. If the Appellant had grievances with
regard to Resolution Plan approved, the Appellant never filed Appeal during that
time. As such, for such reasons, the intervening incidents would not be relevant
for consideration. As per Section 61 (2), the Period of Appeal is 30 days and this
Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone only 15 days. Considering this,
the Appeal is time-barred.
The Appeal is dismissed as time-barred.
[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra] Member (Technical)
Basant B./md.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 51 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