Shri Saurav Vashist vs Metallica Industries Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 246 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is to be presented within 30 days of receipt of the impugned order, extendable by a further 15 days under the proviso to Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; the period runs from the date the appellant or the appellant's authorised representative received the order, and the appellant's own inadvertent or negligent misstatement of the date of receipt does not displace the statutory period.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Saurav Vashist ....Appellant
Vs.
Metallica Industries Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents
Present: For Appellant:- Ms. Shagun Bhargava, Advocate.
For Respondent:- Mr. Ravinder K. Rawat, Advocate.
ORDER
19.09.2022: Heard Ms. Shagun Bhargava, Advocate appears on behalf of
the Appellant and Mr. Ravinder K. Rawat, Advocate appears on behalf of the
Respondent No. 1.
2. I.A. No. 652 of 2020 has been filed by the Appellant in CA (AT) (Ins.) No.
246 of 2020 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Appeal. Further,
I.A. No. 247 of 2022 has been filed seeking amendment in I.A. No. 652 of 2020.
3. The Appellant has preferred this Appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied
by the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National
Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench) in CP(IB)1329/MB/2017 wherein the
Adjudicating Authority has rejected the objections of the Appellant while
approving the Resolution Plan of Respondent No. 1 - Corporate Debtor proposed
by Respondent No. 3- Resolution Applicant.
-2-
4. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant while pressing the I.A. No. 652 of 2020
submits that the Appellant had inadvertently mentioned that he had received
the copy of the order on 14.12.2019 as he had misplaced the envelope and
presumed that the order was receive don 14.12.2019, after the Appeal was filed
on 30.01.2020, the Appellant was able to trace the envelope and upon inspecting
the "Indiapost" website, gained knowledge that Appellant actually received the
order only on 16.12.2019. The appellant had filed the Appeal after the period of
30 days, however, within the additional 15 days as prescribed under Section 61
of IBC hence it is evident that the Appellant had filed the Appeal on 30.01.2020
i.e. on the 45 days from the date of receipt of order, therefore, the Appeal is
within limitation.
5. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in his reply
affidavit in para 2 it is stated that the Appellant wants to establish the fact that
the impugned order dated 16.10.2019 was received by him on 16.12.2019
instead of 14.12.2019, which he alleged in his application for consideration. The
limitation period to file the present Appeal commenced from the day his Counsel
received the said order and not from the day he received the Courier sent by his
Counsel. The tracking report of the consignment further confirms the fact that
the copy of the order was dispatched on 11.12.2019 therefore, the Appellant
cannot blame anybody else for his negligence and filed the present Appeal
beyond the period of 45 days.
6. After hearing the parties and gone through the record, we are of the view
that the Appellant has filed the present Appeal beyond the period of 45 days, -3-
therefore, I.A. No. 652 of 2020 and 247 of 2022 are hereby dismissed.
Accordingly, the instant Appeal hit by limitation, is also dismissed.
[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)
[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
R.N./Kam./
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