NCLAT refuses to Condone Delay in Appeal filing in Absence of Substantial Evidence [Read Order]
NCLAT refuses to Condone Delay in – Appeal filing in Absence of Substantial Evidence – TAXSCAN
NCLAT refuses to Condone Delay in – Appeal filing in Absence of Substantial Evidence – TAXSCAN
The Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal(NCLAT) refused to condone delay in appeal filing in the absence of substantial evidence.
Mr Toral Rathod, the `Applicant’/`Appellant’ seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days in filing of the `Claim’ before the Respondent and for acceptance of the `Claim’. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (`CIRP’) of the `Corporate Debtor’ was initiated on 21.03.2022 and the public announcement was made on 23.03.2022, the last date for submission of `Claim’ being 04.04.2022.
Admittedly, the `Claim’ was filed belatedly by the `Applicant’ after the expiry of the 90th day on 02.08.2022 in an incorrect form i.e., `Form – B’. On receipt of the incorrect form, the Resolution Professional (`RP’) sent a reply email dated 03.08.2022 stating that `Form – B’ filed by the `Applicant’ exceeds the 90 days period and advised the `Applicant’ to approach the `Adjudicating Authority’. Subsequently, on 07.08.2022, the `Applicant’ filed `Form – C’, before the RP and thereafter filed Interlocutory Application.
The `Impugned Order’ was e-filed before the `Adjudicating Authority’ on 29.11.2022. The `Adjudicating Authority’ has noted that except for a vague averment that there was a delay seeking `legal advice’ there are no proper pleadings or material placed on record to substantiate the reason for the delay.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial) and Ms Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical) observed that the actual time period of delay in submitting the `Claim Form’ is 125 days. It is also significant to mention that the `Appellant’ approached the `Adjudicating Authority’ with a further delay of 100 days, and the only reason that was given is that they were seeking `legal advice’, which the `Adjudicating Authority’ has rightly held is only a bald explanation and does not construe a `sufficient cause for the delay’.
There is no substantial grounds to condone the delay and the Appellant neither substantial nor can be construed as a sufficient cause, the Tribunal observed while dismissing the appeal.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
