Securities And Exchange Board Of India vs C. Ramasubramaniam

Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Appellant

Versus

C. Ramasubramaniam ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. C. Prasanna Venkatesh, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. S. Sathiyanarayanan, for R-1.

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

28.07.2022: This order shall dispose off an I.A. No. 556 of 2022 by which

an application has been filed for condonation of delay and to entertain the

main appeal on merits.

Admittedly, the Impugned Order was passed on 25.03.2022 and the

present appeal has been filed on 31.05.2022. Section 61 of the Insolvency &

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code in short) provides the remedy of appeal but the

remedy is to be availed within a period of 30 days from the date of order. In

this case the period of 30 days had expired on 25.04.2022.

However, Section 61 (2) proviso provides a discretion to the Appellate

Authority to extend the period of limitation up to 15 days in case the applicant

is able to show that their exist a sufficient cause for not approaching the Court

in time.

If the period of 15 days is also added to the total period of limitation

then it would expire on 10.05.2022 but the appeal has been filed after a delay of 21 days thereafter on 31.05.2022. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has

submitted that the period of limitation has been counted from the date when

the Impugned Order was uploaded on the website of the NCLT, Chennai on

21.04.2022 and from that date, if 30 days is to be counted then it would expire

on 21.05.2022 and since the appeal has been filed within 15 days thereafter

i.e. on 31.05.2022, the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider the

said application on its merit and can condone the delay as well.

We have heard Learned Counsel for Appellant and perused the record.

This application cannot be allowed as prayed and deserves to be dismissed

because the period of limitation is to run from the date of the passing of the

order and not from the date when it was uploaded on the website of the

Tribunal.

Thus, in view thereof, there is hardly any merit in the present

application and hence the same is hereby dismissed though without any order

as to cost. It is needless to mention that with the dismissal of the application

for condonation of delay, any other application which has also been filed and

the appeal accompanying the application are also dismissed.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

Sim/md