Reliance Realty Limited vs Anup Kumar

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 56 of 2024 & I.A. No. 174, 7733 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Reliance Realty Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus Anup Kumar, ...Respondent Liquidator of Independent TV Ltd. Present: For Appellant: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vaijayant Paliwal, Ms. Kirti Gupta, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ms. Shankari Mishra, Advocates. Mr. Anup Kumar, Liquidator (in-person).

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Oral)

13.05.2025: This appeal has arisen from the order dated 20.11.2023

passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-IV

by which Appeal-(IBC)/50 (MB) 2023, filed by the appellant under Section

42 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') has been

dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the liquidation proceedings were

initiated against the Corporate Debtor, namely, Independent TV Limited

(ITV) on 17.03.2023. Liquidator made the public announcement for

inviting claims on 22.03.2023 which were to be submitted latest by

16.04.2023. It is an admitted fact that the appellant filed its claim with the

Cont'd.../ -2-

Liquidator on Form-C in respect of their outstanding dues against the

Corporate Debtor for a sum of Rs.21,83,14,789/-. The said claim of the

appellant was rejected by the Liquidator on 23.08.2023 by way of an email

on the ground that the claim has been filed belatedly after a delay of 102

days which was not within the statutory timelines prescribed under the

Code and the Liquidation Regulations.

3. Aggrieved against the order of the Liquidator dated 23.08.2023, the

appellant preferred the appeal under Section 42 of the Code on

05.09.2023 in which it was prayed that the delay because of which the

claim of the appellant has been rejected may be condoned and the

Liquidator may be directed to verify and admit the said claim.

4. However, as per the appellant, the appeal dated 05.09.2023 bearing

(IBC)/50 (MB) 2023, was dismissed on 20.11.2023.

5. According to the appellant, the Ld. Tribunal, relying upon an order

of the Ld. NCLT, Hyderabad Bench, rendered in IA-168/2022 IN CP. No.

369/10/HDB/2019 titled as 'Southern Power Distribution Company of

Telangana Limited vs. Priyadarsini Limited Rep by Liquidator, Mr. Krishna

Mohan Gollamudi' decided on 17.07.2023 [2023 SCC Online NCLT 314]

has dismissed the appeal filed under Section 42 of the Code on the ground

that the delay in filing of the appeal has not been appropriately explained.

Therefore, according to the appellant the Ld. Tribunal has infact dismissed

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 56 of 2024 -3-

the appeal on the ground of the limitation which was though filed within

the statutory period.

6. In the alternative, it is submitted that even if it is presumed for the

sake of the argument that the Ld. Tribunal has dismissed the appeal while

not condoning the delay yet the said order is totally non-speaking as the

issue raised by the appellant in his appeal, including jurisdiction of the

Liquidator for considering the belated claim that as to whether it is

directory and not mandatory has not been considered.

7. In the light of the aforesaid argument, he has thus submitted that

since the impugned order is not clear as to whether it has decided the

appeal filed under Section 42 of the Code or refused to condone the delay

made in the appeal, therefore, the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 may

be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Ld. Tribunal to

decide the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 42 of the Code

afresh after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances and

the law.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate appearing on

behalf of Liquidator has vehemently opposed the appeal filed by the

appellant and submitted that the impugned order does not deserve to be

set aside and do not call for a remand because the Ld. Tribunal has rightly

taken into consideration the appeal filed by the appellant in which there is

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 56 of 2024 -4-

a prayer made by the appellant for condonation of delay which has not

found in favour with the Tribunal.

9. We have heard counsel for the parties and after perusal of record,

are of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not clear as to

whether it has decided the appeal filed by the appellant on the merit or on

the issue of limitation because in paragraph No. 5 of the impugned order,

the Ld. Tribunal has relied upon a decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the

NCLT for refusing to condone the delay which was a case pertaining to an

appeal filed by the appellant therein under Section 42 of the Code seeking

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal under Section 42 of the Code.

The Ld. Tribunal, in the penultimate paragraph No. 6 has categorically

recorded that: "In view of the above and perused the material available on

record, this bench finds that, the reasons for delay is not properly given in the

application" which means that the Tribunal has taken into consideration

the decision in the case of Southern Power Distribution Company of

Telangana Limited vs. Priyadarsini Limited Rep by Liquidator, Mr. Krishna

Mohan Gollamudi (supra) which was on the issue of condonation of delay

in filing of the appeal under Section 42 of the Code and not the

condonation of delay in filing the claim before the Liquidator.

10. Moreover, though counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued

that in the entire application of the appellant there is hardly any averment

as to how the delay of 102 has been explained yet we have found that the

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 56 of 2024 -5-

appellant has also raised a legal issue that the consideration of the claim

is directory and not mandatory for which the claim of the appellant which

is running into more than 21 crores, that too towards the rental dues

since 2018 has been rejected. Counsel for the respondent has submitted

that in this regard the appellant had already filed an application bearing

I.A. No. 1342 of 2025 for the said amount.

11. Be that as it may, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, we have

reached to a conclusion in this case that the impugned order is totally

confusing as to whether it has decided the appeal or rejected the claim of

the appellant and also the impugned order is totally non-speaking,

therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter

deserves to be remanded back to the Ld. Tribunal to decide the issue

raised by the appellant and contested by the respondent afresh.

12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed in

Appeal-(IBC)/50 (MB) 2023 is set aside. The Appeal-(IBC)/50 (MB) 2023 is

hereby restored. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. Tribunal seized of

the Liquidation Proceedings, to decide the aforesaid appeal No. (IBC)/50

(MB) 2023 in accordance with law.

13. While parting with this order, we pertinently mention that while

allowing this appeal, we have not touched the merits of the matter and

have left everything open for the Ld. Tribunal to decide in the appeal. The

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 56 of 2024 -6-

parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30.05.2025. Pending

I.As, if any, are hereby closed. The parties shall bear their own cost.

14. We request the Ld. Tribunal to decide this appeal of the appellant

expeditiously by giving short dates.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

SA/RR

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 56 of 2024