15/07/2021

Belated claim cannot be condoned and accepted at belated stage especially when the Resolution Plan is approved by the CoC and is pending before NCLT – R. Natarajan Vs. Mr. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan RP of Appu Hotels Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to […]

Belated claim cannot be condoned and accepted at belated stage especially when the Resolution Plan is approved by the CoC and is pending before NCLT – R. Natarajan Vs. Mr. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan RP of Appu Hotels Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

Rule 155 of NCLT Rules, 2016 which allows amendments only within 30 days from the date of completion of pleadings is not applicable where amendment is being done in compliance with the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court – B. Prashanth Hegde Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Rule 155 of NCLT Rules, 2016 which allows amendments only within 30 days from the date of completion of pleadings is not applicable where amendment is being done in compliance with the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court – B. Prashanth Hegde Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may be pressed into service to condone the delay in filing necessary ‘Interlocutory Application’, however, it is for the Applicant to explain the delay that has occasioned to the subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal – Jain Irrigation Systems Limited Vs. Empee Sugars and Chemicals Limited – NCLAT Chennai

The Operational Creditor has filed the instant Appeal being aggrieved against the Order of Adjudicating Authority in dismissing its Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal and held that it is significantly pointed out that the condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Of course, the condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court/Tribunal. It cannot be forgotten that limitation is a prescription of repose and unless the statute allows the Court, an element of discretion, by way of an application for condonation of delay, the Court/Tribunal has no power to find out a method in granting relief to a person who may appear to have suffered. When there is want of due care and attention or want of due diligence, the Tribunal may decline to entertain an application, as there is no sufficient cause for the delay. A glance of the ingredients of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 unerringly points out that the explanation of delay must be to the satisfaction of the Court/Tribunal. To put it candidly, an acceptance of explanation is the only criterion for condonation of delay. Of course, based on the facts of a given case Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may be pressed into service to condone the delay in filing necessary interlocutory application, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal. However, it is for the Applicant/Appellant to explain the delay that has occasioned to the subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may be pressed into service to condone the delay in filing necessary ‘Interlocutory Application’, however, it is for the Applicant to explain the delay that has occasioned to the subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal – Jain Irrigation Systems Limited Vs. Empee Sugars and Chemicals Limited – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Objections on Procedural Irregularities in relation to the Resolution Plan – Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan, RP, Appu Hotels Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench

The Adjudicating dismissed the objects and held that it is significant to note here that, a statutory provision regulating a matter of practice or procedure will generally be read as directory and not mandatory. Thus, even though the objectors to the Resolution Plan have alleged many procedural irregularities in relation to the conduct of the proceedings in relation to the COC; however those objectors have miserably failed to establish as to what prejudice has been caused to them in respect of the same. Further, a person who has been inducted as a member of the CoC in its 6th meeting cannot be allowed to question the actions taken by the CoC in the past meetings.

Objections on Procedural Irregularities in relation to the Resolution Plan – Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan, RP, Appu Hotels Ltd. – NCLT Chennai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top