CP(IB)-369/HDB/2019-NCLT

The delay in filing Appeal u/s 42 of IBC can be condoned even in the absence of the application u/s 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 but there shall at least be an oral prayer for condonation of delay, the delay cannot be condoned Suo-Moto – Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. Vs. Priyadarsini Ltd. Rep by Liquidator, Mr. Krishna Mohan Gollamudi – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

The NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that there is no bar to exercise by the Court/Tribunal of its discretion to condone delay, in the absence of a formal application it is not always necessary to file an application for condonation of delay before the Court or Tribunal, and delay can be condoned even in the absence of the Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Therefore, there shall at least be an oral prayer for condonation of delay, stating the reasons for not filing the Appeal within 14 days. Therefore, when the Application itself is being bared by limitation and for condonation of delay not even a single ground is pleaded, the delay cannot be condoned ‘Suo-Moto’.

The delay in filing Appeal u/s 42 of IBC can be condoned even in the absence of the application u/s 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 but there shall at least be an oral prayer for condonation of delay, the delay cannot be condoned Suo-Moto – Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. Vs. Priyadarsini Ltd. Rep by Liquidator, Mr. Krishna Mohan Gollamudi – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Whether the Workmen are entitled for wages till the date of Liquidation Order? – Vemula Amarchand Vs. Krishna Mohan Gollamudi RP for Priyadarsini Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench

The Adjudicating Authority observed that the Applicant herein has not signed on the Full and Final Settlement, Form-H (Memorandum of Settlement under Section (Section 18 (1) and 19 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 2(p) and rules made thereunder) and Joint Letter as mandated under Rule 60(4) of the Telangana Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. Therefore, in the absence of record of acceptance of settlement by the Applicant it can’t be said that above settlement was binding on the Applicant herein. Therefore, when once it is found that, there is no settlement or accord reached between the Applicant and Suspended Management regarding Payment of the legitimate claims of the Applicant the closure date which was arrived at only by consent cannot be reckoned for the purpose of Settlement of the dues of the Applicant herein. Hence the Applicant is deemed to be in employment under the suspended management during the CIRP period.

Whether the Workmen are entitled for wages till the date of Liquidation Order? – Vemula Amarchand Vs. Krishna Mohan Gollamudi RP for Priyadarsini Ltd. – NCLT Hyderabad Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top