Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Union Of India Through Under Secretory ... vs M/S Independent Tv Limited

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal30 November 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