Case Reference:

Case Name : State Bank of India Vs. MBL Infrastructures Ltd. & Ors.
Company Appeal : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 336 of 2018
Appellant(s) : State Bank of India
Respondent(s) : MBL Infrastructures Ltd. & Ors.
Order Date : 03-Jul-18
NCLAT Bench : New Delhi
Section Ref. : 61(2)

Brief about the decision:

From a plain reading of the provision it is manifestly clear that the appeal has to be preferred within 30 days but delay not exceeding 15 days can be condoned in preferring the appeal provided the appellant is able to satisfy this Appellant Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of 30 days. This provision unambiguously provides a maximum time frame of 45 days for filing of appeal, which is not further extendable on any ground whatsoever.

Full text of the judgment:

Section 61(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I&B Code’) prescribes period of 30 days for filing of an appeal by a person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The proviso to the sub-section provides that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of said period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed 15 days. From a plain reading of the provision it is manifestly clear that the appeal has to be preferred within 30 days but delay not exceeding 15 days can be condoned in preferring the appeal provided the appellant is able to satisfy this Appellant Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of 30 days. This provision unambiguously provides a maximum time frame of 45 days for filing of appeal, which is not further extendable on any ground whatsoever.

2. Admittedly, the instant appeal has been filed under Section 61 of I&B Code well beyond the maximum prescribed period of 45 days. Same being hit by the limitation clause under the said provision is not maintainable. Submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that the appeal could not be preferred within extended period of limitation due to the intervention of vacations spanning the month of June has no merit as the Registry of this Appellate Tribunal was functioning throughout the vacation period and Vacation Bench was available.

3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as barred by limitation.

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat]
Member (Judicial)

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply