566

Alfa Pigment and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Pritam Bayal, RP of Birla Tyres Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench

This application has been preferred by the Applicant (Alfa Pigment and Chemicals Private Limited) under Section 60 (5) of the IBC read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 to seek condonation of delay in lodging a claim with the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor M/s. Birla Tyres Limited.

The Adjudicating Authority held that we have considered the rival contention and perused records. Other than lack of knowledge, no ground has been pleaded and no authorities have been cited by the Applicant which would inspire us to condone the massive delay of 417 days in lodging of the claim. Hence, we dismiss this application.

Alfa Pigment and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Pritam Bayal, RP of Birla Tyres Ltd. – NCLT Kolkata Bench Read Post »

If the Registry upholds the defects under Rule 6(3) of the DRAT(Procedure Rules), 1994, the appellant has a right of appeal, under Rule 6(5) of the Rules before the Appellate Tribunal, within 15 days – Suresh Kumar P K Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal – Kerala High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that a plain reading of Rule 6(3) of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal(Procedure Rules), 1994 demonstrates that the appellant can either cure or answer the defects noted by the Registry. If the Registry upholds the defects, then the appellant has a right of appeal, under Rule 6(5) of the Rules before the Appellate Tribunal, within 15 days. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner has not answered defect No.4 in Ext P3 proceedings. Instead, he has rushed to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that the defect No.4 is unsustainable in law.

If the Registry upholds the defects under Rule 6(3) of the DRAT(Procedure Rules), 1994, the appellant has a right of appeal, under Rule 6(5) of the Rules before the Appellate Tribunal, within 15 days – Suresh Kumar P K Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal – Kerala High Court Read Post »

The limitation to file Appeal under Section 61 cannot be treated to be under suspension till free of cost copy is received by party as enjoined by NCLT Rule 50 – M/s. Hasmukh N. Shah & Associates Vs. M/s. Victoria Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, the NCLT delivered its judgment on 20.07.2018, the Appellant applied certified copy of the order twice firstly on 21.01.2019 and secondly on 29.07.2021 and the certified copy was ready and issued on 29.07.2021. All the Appeals under Section 61 of the Code have been filed on 20.09.2021. NCLAT held that applying the ratio of the judgment of the Ms. Sagufa Ahmed & Ors. Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [2020] ibclaw.in 28 SC, in the present case, at best Appellant can claim that period of limitation did not start running till he applied for certified copy of the order i.e. till 21.01.2019. The Appeals have been filed on the strength of certified copy of the judgment which was applied on 29.07.2021 which certified copy of the Application is claimed by the Appellant after more than three years of the delivery of the judgment. We are of the view the Appellant is not entitled to rely on the judgment of Sagufa Ahmed’s case in the facts of the present case. In any view of the matter, Appeals have been filed after expiry of limitation. The Appeals are barred by time and cannot be entertained. The three Judge Bench judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. & Ors. (2021) ibclaw.in 157 SC fully covers the question which are up for consideration before us.

The limitation to file Appeal under Section 61 cannot be treated to be under suspension till free of cost copy is received by party as enjoined by NCLT Rule 50 – M/s. Hasmukh N. Shah & Associates Vs. M/s. Victoria Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top