Rm Applied Engineering Through Its ... vs Sanjeev Maheshwari

IN THE MATTER OF: R M Applied Engineering ...Appellant

Versus

Sanjeev Maheshwari ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vishwanath Patil, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ravi Raghunath, Advocate.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

01.04.2024 I.A. No. 2229 of 2024

This is an application praying for condonation of 75 days delay in filing

the application. The I.A. which was filed by Appellant being I.A. 4620 of 2023

was heard and dismissed on 23.11.2023.

This Appeal has been e-filed by the Appellant on 11.03.2024. Counsel for

the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was searching for the copy of the

Order from the website and could know only in the month of February about

the uploading. It is submitted that the Appellant enquired from the Registry

about the uploading of the Order and the Appellant was informed that the

Order was uploaded from the old website under the case details of the main

Company Petition.

-2-

The Counsel for the Appellant was present and heard on the date when

Order was passed. Appellant never applied for certified copy of the Order and

Appellant has applied for the certified copy of the Order only on 27.02.2024

i.e., more than 30 days from passing of the Order.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent relying on the Judgement of this

Tribunal in 'Mr. V. Nagarajan' Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. & Ors.',

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 561 of 2020, submits that the delay beyond 15

days, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay.

It is further submitted that the Appellant ought to have vigilant in

applying the certified copy of the Order of the same date and Appellant having

applied certified copy of the Order after 30 days is not entitled for any benefit of

period during which certified copy was under preparation.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant lastly contended that under Rule 50 of

the NCLAT Rules, 2016, it was required for Registry to send the free of cost

copy to the Appellant. The fact that the free of cost copy has not been

forwarded to the Appellant as contended by the Appellant is not relevant for

extension of limitation nor the limitation to file the Appeal shall commence only

after receipt of the copy under Rule 50.

We thus are of the view that delay is beyond 15 days and our jurisdiction

to condone the delay is limited to 15 days as per Section 61 sub-Section 2

proviso of IBC, we are unable to condone 75 days delay.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 616 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2229, 2230 of 2024 -3-

Delay condonation is rejected. The memo of Appeal is also rejected.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 616 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2229, 2230 of 2024