Shaji Purushothaman vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 789 of 2019 with
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal's power under sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to condone delay in filing an appeal is limited to a further period of fifteen days beyond the initial thirty-day period of appeal, and it has no jurisdiction to condone any delay exceeding fifteen days.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Shaji Purushothaman ...Appellant
Versus
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Aditya Shankar, Mr. Vibhu Anshuman, Mr. Rohit Rajershi, Mr. Varun Jamval, Mr. Karuppaiah Meyyappan, Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan and Ms. Nidhi Sahay, Advocates
For Respondents: Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.P. Agrawal, Mr. Prateek Kushwaha and Ms. Deepali, Advocates
ORDER
27.09.2019 : Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant regarding
application for condonation of delay. The present appeal has been filed against
the impugned order dated 02.05.2019 whereby the whole claim of Respondent
- 'Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.' was directed to be processed
by the Resolution Professional for the purpose of 'Committee of Creditors'.
The I.A. No. 2294 of 2019 has been filed by the Appellant claiming that
the appellant came to know about the impugned order dated 03.05.2019
(pronounced on 02.05.2019) only on 11.07.2019. However, the Learned
Counsel for Respondent No. 1 is referring to the affidavit filed by this 2
Respondent wherein at Page 20 there is copy of the email sent by the
Resolution Professional -'S Rajendran' on 18.05.2019 which shows as one of
the attachment the impugned order dated 02.05.2019. Thus, it is argued by
the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Appellant - 'Shaji
Purushothaman' was already forwarded a copy of the impugned order dated
02.05.2019 on 18.05.2019. He states that present appeal therefore, is clearly
time barred. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant was in
such a condition that the appellant did not access his email and thus
according to the counsel the delay may be condoned in interest of justice.
After knowledge on 18.05.2019 present appeal was filed after 55 days.
We find that as per sub section 2 of Section 61 we have powers to condone
period of fifteen days after expiry of initial period of appeal of thirty days. We
have no jurisdiction to condone more than 15 days.
In this circumstance, we find that the present appeal is time barred and
same is not entertained accordingly.
[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)
sa/sk
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 789 of 2019 with I.A. No. 2294 of 2019
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