Sneh Lata And Ors vs Asset Care And Reconstruction ...

Snehlata & Ors. ...Appellant

Versus

Asset Care & Reconstruction Enterprises Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Advocate Gunjan Kumar, Advocate Sumitra Choudhary, Advocate Renu Bajpai, Advocate M.K. Raghav R. For Respondent: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Ms. Wamika Trehan, Ms. Raddhika K. Tandon, Mr. Siddhanth Kumar, Ms. Bhawana Sharma, Ms. Namrata Saroagi, Mr. Kartik Pandey, Advocates Dr. Pankaj Garg, Sr. Advocate for RP Advocate Nikita Garg, for RP With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 991 of 2023

&

I.A. No. 3385 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Satyabir Singh & Ors. ...Appellant

Versus

Asset Care & Reconstruction Enterprises Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Advocate Gunjan Kumar, Advocate Sumitra Choudhary, Advocate Renu Bajpai, Advocate M.K. Raghav R. For Respondent: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Ms. Wamika Trehan, Ms. Raddhika K. Tandon, Mr. Siddhanth Kumar, Ms. Bhawana -2-

Sharma, Ms. Namrata Saroagi, Mr. Kartik Pandey, Advocates Dr. Pankaj Garg, Sr. Advocate for RP Advocate Nikita Garg, for RP

ORDER

06.10.2023: I.A. No. 3377 and 3385 of 2023. These two appeals have

been filed against the Order dated 24th April, 2023 by which Resolution Plan

has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority. These Appeals have been e-

filed on 07th July, 2023.

2. There are delay condonation applications in both these Appeals i.e. 3377

and 3385 of 2023. These Appeals were filed beyond 15 days after expiry of the

limitation.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that since the Appellants

were not aware of the Order and they came to know about the order only on

25th June, 2023 hence the limitation for computing the limitation shall begin

from the date of knowledge i.e. 25th June, 2023 and not from the date when

the Order was passed.

4. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for Respondent

refuting the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that

limitation for filing the Appeal shall commence from the date when order is

passed. He has placed reliance on Civil Appeal No. 2212 of 2021, Safire

Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and

Anr. where Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the same submission that

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.990-991/2023 -3-

time for filing the appeal shall begin form the date of knowledge. It is useful to

extract the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

"The appellant contends that an appeal against an order passed by the NCLT has to be filed within 45 days from the date of passing of the order. In support of the said contention, the appellant relied upon the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2943-2944 of 2020 etc. dated 10.03.2021 titled Kalpraj Dharamshi & Anr. vs. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. & Anr.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated that period of limitation would start from the date of knowledge. Though, the claim was filed by Respondent No.1 before the Resolution Professional, it was not a party before the NCLT which passed the order approving the resolution plan. According to the learned counsel for 1st Respondent, he came to know about the order passed by the NCLT much later. Support was sought from a judgment of this Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer [1962 (1) SCR 676] for submitting that provisions relating to limitation have to be given a liberal construction.

The judgment that is relied upon by the Respondent No. 1 relates to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, we are concerned with the limitation prescribed by Section 61 of the IBC which fell for consideration of this Court in Kalpraj Dharamshi (supra). In the said judgment, it was categorically held by this Court that an appeal against the order of NCLT shall be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date on which the order was passed by the NCLT. The Appellate Tribunal has the power to extend the period of limitation by another 15 days."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.990-991/2023 -4-

5. We are of the view that the Appeals which have been filed beyond 15

days after expiry of the limitation cannot be entertained. Our jurisdiction to

condone the delay is limited to 15 days only as per Section 61(2) Proviso of

Code.

Both the Delay Condonation Applications are dismissed. Consequently,

the memo of Appeal is rejected.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Basant/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.990-991/2023