The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... vs Surana Industries Ltd (In Liquidation) ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1525 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant gave no sufficient cause, and the Tribunal would not interfere on that basis. The ground that the appeal was filed late because of confusion about when the impugned order was communicated was held not to be a ground for condoning delay in an insolvency liquidation proceeding, given that the liquidation process is time-bound and the Liquidator must conclude proceedings within the period prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Audit), Raichur ....Appellant
Vs.
Surana Industries Ltd. (In Liquidation) & Anr. ....Respondents
Present: Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Hulgul, Advocate. Respondents: Mr. Parthasarhy Bose, Mr. Mayank Kshir Sagar, Ms. Pankhuri and Mr. Mohd. Arif, Advocates.
ORDER
07.02.2020: Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In terms of impugned order, the Appellate Authority (National Company
Law Tribunal) Division Bench I Chennai declined to entertain the appeal
preferred against rejection of claim of Appellant by the Liquidator on the
ground that no specific application seeking condonation of delay was filed
beyond the prescribed period of 14 days. Learned counsel for the Appellant
submits that there was a confusion about communication of the impugned
order and that manifested in filing of appeal after delay of 7 days beyond the
prescribed period. However, that cannot be a ground for seeking condonation
as the liquidation process is a time bound process and the Liquidator has to
conclude his proceedings within one year as prescribed under Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
-2-
2. In absence of sufficient cause and cogent reason, we are unable to
persuade ourselves to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)
[Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial)
[V. P. Singh] Member (Technical)
am/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1525 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