Saurabh Soni vs Arthimpact Finserve Pvt Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 169 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The limitation period under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for an appeal to this Tribunal is 30 days from the date of the impugned order, extendable by the Tribunal by a further period not exceeding 15 days on showing sufficient cause, and no further. Time taken to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order is not excluded from computing that limitation where the application for the certified copy was itself made after the 30-day period had already expired, so that the time consumed in obtaining it cannot be excused.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Saurabh Soni ...Appellant
Versus
Arthimpact Finserve Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Ajatshatru & Ankitta Singh, Advocates For Respondent: Ms. Garima Gupta, Ms. Akanksha Mehra, Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocates
ORDER
17.04.2023: I.A. No. 636 of 2023 has been filed praying for condonation
of delay in filing the Appeal.
2. The Order impugned was passed on 2nd June, 2022 and the Appeal has
been e-filed on 19th July, 2022.
3. An Additional Affidavit has been filed by the Appellant where grounds
have been given for condonation of delay. It is submitted that certified copy
was applied on 08th July, 2022 which was received by the Advocate on 12th
July, 2022. It is submitted that the period undertaken obtaining the certified
copy need to be excluded. The order was passed on 2nd June, 2022 hence 30
days period expired on 02nd July, 2022 and further 15 days period also came
to an end by 17th July, 2022. Our jurisdiction to condone the delay is limited
to 15 days only in sub section (2) of Section 61 proviso. The delay in filing the
Appeal which was filed on 19th July, 2022 is beyond 15 days. The Appeal
having been filed beyond 15 days after expiry of the limitation, delay
condonation application can not be allowed.
-2-
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that time taken in
obtaining certified copy need to be excluded. The application according to own
case of the Appellant for obtaining certified copy was filed on 08th July, 2022
that is after 30 days from passing of the impugned order which is not
admissible, hence the time taken during obtaining certified copy can not be
excluded which is already held by this Tribunal in "Gaurav Agarwal Vs. CA
Devang P Sampat" (2022) SCC OnLine NCLAT 393, where following was laid
down in paragraph 12:
"12. In the present case, as noted above, certified copy is claimed to be applied by the Appellant on 15.06.2022 i.e. after expiry of limitation. We, thus, are of the view that present appeal has been filed beyond 45 days from date of the order dated 06.05.2022 and delay of more than 15 days beyond the period of 30 days cannot be condoned by this Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 61(2) of the I&B Code."
5. We thus are of the view the Appellant is not entitled to exclude the
period consumed during obtaining certified copy. In result, Delay
Condonation Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Memo of Appeal is
rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 169/2023
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