Vikram International vs Trinity Tradelink Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 416 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Appellate Tribunal's power to condone delay in filing an appeal is confined to a further period of fifteen days beyond the statutory limitation; a delay exceeding that period cannot be condoned and the appeal must be rejected. Time spent in obtaining a certified copy of the impugned order is excludable from the limitation computation only where the appellant establishes, by contemporaneous records bearing the Registry's diary number and date of filing, that the application for the certified copy was made within the limitation period; an unsupported assertion of an earlier application does not suffice. Non-receipt of an SMS or email notice of listing does not excuse delay where the matter has been shown in the cause list, since the cause list itself constitutes sufficient notice to the parties.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Vikram International ...Appellant Versus Trinity Tradelink Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked. For Respondent : Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Advocate.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
13.05.2024 : I.A. No. 1413 of 2024
1. Heard Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This is an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the
Section 9 application.
3. This Appeal has been e-filed on 05.02.2024 against the order dated
21.12.2023 passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company
Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench - V).
4. Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant has applied for a
certified copy of the order on 18.01.2024, but no receiving was taken up on
the said application and the said copy was not available with the Registry and
hence the Appellant again applied for certified copy of the order on 23.01.2024
and certified copy was received thereafter.
5. It is further submitted that although the case was shown on the cause
list but no SMS or email was sent to the Appellant or his Counsel about the
listing of the matter.
6. It is admitted by the Counsel for the Appellant that the case was shown
in the Cause List and when the case is shown in the Cause List it is ample
Notice to the parties and the submission that in addition to the case shown
in the Cause List, email and SMS should be also sent cannot be accepted.
7. Furthermore, the application was filed by the Appellant itself under
Section 9.
8. The second submission of the Appellant is that certified copy was
applied on 18.01.2024 which has been filed as Annexure A and when it was
not available, another copy was applied on 23.01.2024 which is Annexure B
of the Affidavit.
9. When we look into Annexures A & B, it is clear that the application
which was filed for certified copy on 23.01.2024 there is a Diary No.
mentioned and date and time of filing the application. Whereas Annexure A
which is filed by the Appellant does not mention any receiving of the NCLT or
any Diary No.
10. We thus are not able to accept the submission that the certified copy
was applied on 18.01.2024. The certified copy having been applied on
23.01.2024 i.e., after 30 days from passing of the order. Appellant is not
entitled for any benefits or exclusion of time taken in obtaining certified copy
of the order.
11. The delay in the appeal is beyond 15 days i.e., un-condonable period
since our jurisdiction to condone the period is only 15 days as per Section
61(2) proviso.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 416 of 2024 2 of 3
12. The delay being beyond condonable period, we are of the view that delay
condonation cannot be allowed.
The delay condonation is rejected. Memo of appeal is also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 416 of 2024 3 of 3
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