Uttam Con Infrastructure Company Pvt ... vs Rail Vikas Nigam Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1256 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasons for refusing condonation of the 585-day delay in refiling the appeal rest on the following principles: An asserted medical ground for delay, which lacks any foundation in the material placed before the Tribunal, cannot by itself constitute sufficient cause for condoning an inordinate delay in refiling an appeal. Proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are time-bound, and an inordinate delay of that magnitude in refiling an appeal in such proceedings cannot be condoned; where the application for condonation is rejected, the memorandum of appeal stands rejected with it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Uttam Con Infrastructure Company Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Mohana Sharda, Mr. Vinay Kumar Jain, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Udit Seth, Mr. Roshan Roy, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
23.07.2024: I.A. No.4489 of 2024: This is an application praying for
condonation of 6 days' delay in filing the appeal. Sufficient cause has been
shown to condone delay of 6 days in filing the appeal. Delay condoned. I.A.
No. 4489 of 2024 is disposed of.
I.A. No.4267 of 2024: This is an application praying for condonation of 585
days' delay in refiling the appeal. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits
that the Appellant suffered from brain haemorrhage.
2. The ground which has been taken in the application for condonation of
delay are in Paras 3 and 4. Although there is no foundation to the ground
which is sought to be advanced during course of the hearing but that also
cannot be a ground to condone 585 days' delay in refiling the appeal. IBC
proceedings are proceedings which have to be completed in a time bound
Cont'd.../ 2
manner and such an inordinate delay of 585 days cannot not be condoned.
Delay Condonation Application is rejected. Memo of Appeal also stands
rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1256 of 2024
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