Udaykumar Bhaskar Bhat vs Intec Capital Limited And Anr

IN THE MATTER OF: Udaykumar Bhaskar Bhat ...Appellant Versus Intec Capital Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Akshay Petkar, Ms. Sonia Sharma, Mr. Pranav Shah and Ms. Anoushka Deo, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Prashant Chari, Advocate for R-1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

06.03.2025 : I.A. No. 19/2025

1. This is an Application praying for condonation of 12 days delay in filing

of the Appeal.

2. In the Application, Appellant's case is that although delay is 12 days

only, but the Registry has informed that there is a delay of 17 days.

3. An Additional Affidavit has been filed in support of the delay

condonation Application. Reply to the Section 5 Application has also been

filed.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Order was passed on

23.08.2024, Certified Copy was applied by Appellant in 20.09.2024. In the

Additional Affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation Application copy

of the Application by which Certified Copy was applied has been brought on

the record at Page 6 of the Affidavit. He submits that Application was made

and thereafter he received the copy.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that Appeal has been filed

on basis of free of cost copy which was received on 23.09.2024 and there is

no question of excluding a period from 20.09.2024 to 23.09.2024. It is

submitted by the Respondent that even though Certified Copy was applied on

20.09.2024, Appellant might have received copy on 20.09.2024 itself.

6. The categorical case of the Appellant in Paragraph 4 of the Additional

Affidavit is as follows:

"4. I say that with respect to I.A. No. 19 of 2025, the Appellant has filed the same seeking a condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the Appeal. I say that the actual delay in filing the Appeal is only 14 days (44th day) and 3 days stand excluded on account of the time taken to procure a certified copy. The Applicant through his Advocate applied for a certified copy on 20.09.2024 and the same was received on 23.09.2024. Thus, the period of 3 days be excluded from the period of 17 days. Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure A1 is the acknowledged copy of the Application dated 20.09.2024 made before the NCLT, Mumbai registry."

7. The copy was applied within 30 days of passing of the Order and

accepting the free of cost copy to be Certified Copy which was received on

23.09.2024, we are of the view that Appellant is entitled for exclusion of time

from 20.09.2024 to 23.09.2024 and after granting the said exclusion, the

delay is within the condonable period.

8. Further, reason was given in Paragraph 2 that on account of Ganpati

Festival in his hometown, Appellant could not approach the

Counsel/Advocate.

9. We find sufficient cause in the delay condonation Application.

Delay in filing the Appeal is condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 6 of 2025 & I.A. Nos. 8916 of 2024 & 19 of 2025 2 of 4 I.A. No. 8916/2024

1. This is an Application praying for condonation of 53 days delay in

refiling of the Appeal.

2. Sufficient case has been shown in Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Application

for condonation of 53 days delay in refiling.

Refiling delay condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 6/2025

1. This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated 23.08.2024 passed

by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai

Bench, Court - IV) in I.A. No. 1252 of 2023, by which Order, I.A. No.

1252/2023 has been disposed of.

2. The entire Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is as follows:

"1. Mr. Akshay Petkar a/w Mr. Pranav Shah, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant present through virtual mode. Mr. Uday Kumar B. Bhat, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/Resolution Professional present through virtual mode. Mr. Prashant Chari, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent no. 1 present though virtual mode.

2. This bench directed on 24.07.2024 to the RP to submit the actual fees and expenses before the CoC. After submitting the same the CoC was directed to take a decision on the fee and expenses of the IRP. Till date the CoC has not conducted the meeting for payment of the fee. The counsel for the RP has submitted the fee and expenses details to the CoC.

3. Finally, one-week time is granted to CoC to conduct the meeting and finalize the payment of the RP fee and expenses as per Law.

4. With the above directions, the IA-1252/2023 is disposed of."

3. When we look into the Order, the Order only granted one week time to

the CoC to conduct the meeting and finalize the payment of RP's fee and

expenses as per law.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 6 of 2025 & I.A. Nos. 8916 of 2024 & 19 of 2025 3 of 4

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Show Cause Notice

was issued to the Directors and contempt was pending and subsequently the

CoC has approved only part of the fee and expenses.

5. We are of the view that with respect to decision of the CoC subsequently

taken approving part of fee and expenses, Appellant shall have only a fresh

cause of action. The issues which are sought to be raised could not have been

gone into this Appeal which was filed only against the Order dated

23.08.2024.

6. We do not find any error in the Order of the Adjudicating Authority

dated 23.08.2024. With regard to fresh cause of action, it is always open for

the Applicant to file appropriate Application before the Adjudicating Authority.

With these observations, Appeal dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 6 of 2025 & I.A. Nos. 8916 of 2024 & 19 of 2025 4 of 4