Union Of India Through Under Secretory ... vs M/S Independent Tv Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1553 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the further period of 15 days, and that bar cannot be circumvented by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution. Where an appeal is refiled after a defect is cured, the delay in refiling may be condoned only on a showing of sufficient cause; a refiling delay that is not supported by any averment of sufficient cause cannot be condoned. An appeal that is filed out of time beyond the statutory condonable period, and whose refiling is likewise not validly saved, is not duly constituted and is liable to be dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1553 of 2023 & I.A. No. 5574, 5575 of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
Union of India ...Appellant Through Under Secretary to the Govt. of India Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Versus
Independent TV Ltd. ...Respondent Through Shri Anup Kumar Resolution Professional
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Advocate For Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Ms. Shankari Mishra, Ms. Niharika Tanwar, Mr. Karan Kohli, Advocates
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
30.11.2023: I.A. No. 5575 of 2023. This Application is for seeking
condonation of delay of 47 days in filing the present Appeal. The impugned
order was passed on 17th March, 2023. It is mentioned in the application that
the Appellant came to know about the impugned order on 21st March, 2023.
If 30 days are counted from 17th March, 2023 then it would expire on 16th
April, 2023 and if 30 days are counted from 21st March, 2023, it would expire
on 20th April, 2023. Further period of 15 days, provided under Section 61(2)
proviso would expire on 01st May, 2023 if limitation is counted from 17th
March, 2023 and if it is counted from 21st March, 2023 would expire on 05th
May, 2023 as per the averment made in the Application.
2. Standing counsel for Central Government received the communication
from the Department on 04th March, 2023 that Appeal is to be filed against
the Order impugned. In 21st June, 2023, the draft appeal was sent by the -2-
Department for approval of the competent authority and thereafter the Appeal
was filed on 04th July, 2023.
3. In the case of National Spot Exchange Limited Vs. Mr. Anil Kohli, RP of
Dunar Food Limited, Civil Appeal No. 6187 of 2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that Tribunal does not enjoy the jurisdiction to condone the delay
beyond the period of 15 days as provided under Section 61(2) proviso. Hon'ble
Supreme Court has further held that the delay beyond the period of 15 days
cannot even be condoned by resorting to Article 142 of the Constitution of
India.
4. Thus, in view of the fact that delay of 47 days beyond period of 15 days
cannot be condoned as this Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to
entertain the Application for condoning the delay beyond the period of 15
days. 5. The Application is thus dismissed.
6. The Appellant has also filed I.A. No. 5574 of 2023 for condonation of
delay of 137 days in refiling the Appeal. It is mentioned in the application that
the delay has been caused and the Appeal was refiled after removal of the
defect and in this process delay of 137 has occurred.
7. There is limitation of seven days provided in the Rules for refiling the
Appeal after removal of the defect whereas in the present case the delay in
refiling is of 137 days. This Court by a Judgment of five-member bench, in
the matter of I.A. No. 3961 of 2022 in C.A.(AT) Ins. No. 729 of 2020, Union
Bank of India Vs. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian & Ors., has held that the
delay in refiling can be condoned only if a sufficient cause is made out. In the
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1553/2023 -3-
present case, no sufficient cause has even been averred in the application for
seeking condonation of delay in refiling.
8. From the resume of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
apparent that the Appellant has filed this appeal in a most casual manner
and thus the question would arise as to who is responsible for the loss caused
to the government. We are not going into this aspect of the matter. But the
fact remains that not only the Appeal has been filed after the huge delay of 47
days but also it has been refiled after huge delay of 137 days.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since we have
dismissed both the Applications seeking condonation of delay in filing as well
as refiling, present Appeal is not duly constituted and the same is hereby
dismissed. No cost.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)
Basant/RR
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1553/2023
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