Limitation Period – Appeal against order of adjudicating authority I&B Code, 2016

Limitation Period – Appeal against order of adjudicating authority

IBC

Short Summary:

In this flash tabloid, the writer initiates by speak of the provisions of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereafter referred as “I&B Code”) in relation to power of u/s 61(2) of I&B Code.

The main drive of the broadsheet, on the other hand, is upon the “What is Time Period for Filing of Appeal in NCLAT against the order of adjudicating authority”

            This is article no. 292 of the series of editorials written by the author on corporate laws

{Including Companies Act, 2013, SEBI, RBI Regulations, IBC, LLP Act, 2008 etc.}.

In this editorial author discuss the provisions under Section 62(2) of I&B Code, 2016 and landmark judgement delivered by NCLAT, in case Steam Amod Amladi V/s. Mrs. Sayali Rane  & Anr and Nityanand Singh and Co. V/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd..

Case element:

Case Name	Amod Amladi V/s. Mrs. Sayali Rane
Operational Creditor
Corporate Debtor	Citrus Check Inns Limited
Bench Name	The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)
Link:	http://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2017/Dec/30th%20Nov%202017%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Amod%20Amladi%20Vs.%20Sayali%20Rane%20&%20Anr.%20CA%20(AT)%20(Insolvency)%20No.%20295-2017_2017-12-07%2013:13:42.pdf
Order Pronounced on	30th November, 2017

A.  Factual Background:

I.            Appellant claims to be investor of CD. Appellant alleging initiation of CIRP by Mumbai bench of NCLT u/s 9.

II.            Appellant earlier made application in NCLT Mumbai Bench to recall the order dated 2^nd May, 2017.

III.            NCLT: Adjudicating authority rejected the prayer by impugned order dated 3^rd October, 2017 on the ground that NCLT has no power to recall the order or dismiss the petition after admission.

In the present appeal the order dated “3^rd October, 2017” challenge by the Appellant.

IV.            Appellant: submitted that the petition u/s 9 preferred by the OC was filed fraudulently in connivance with the directors. According to him OC is also liable to be punished u/s 65 of “I & B Code, 2016”.

Findings of the NCLT Bench: 

Hon’ble NCLAT states that,

First: The Appellant is an Investor therefore, the Appellant cannot claim to be an ‘aggrieved person’ for preferring appeal against the order dated 2nd May, 2017 passed by Adjudicating Authority whereby the application under Section 9 of the ‘I&B Code’ was admitted. In fact, the Appellant being an investor is entitled to file its claim before the ‘Insolvency Resolution Professional Therefore, No relief can be granted to the Appellant.

Second: Further, as the order dated 2nd May, 2017 is not under challenge in this appeal this Appellate Tribunal cannot express any opinion with regard to the order of admission dated 2nd May, 2017. If the said order dated 2nd May, 2017 is allowed to be challenged, the appeal will be barred by limitation under sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the ‘I&B Code’.

For the reasons aforesaid, no relief can be granted.

Section 61(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal:

Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days.

Conclusion: in the above mentioned case 30 days has already been passed from the original order dated 2^nd May, 2017. Therefore, one can opine that Appellant petition restricted under Limitation provisions of Section 61(2)

One more Case

Case Name	Nityanand Singh & Co. (OC) V/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Bench Name	The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)
Link:	http://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2017/Dec/29th%20Nov%202017%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20Nityanand%20Singh%20and%20Co.%20Vs.%20Ferrous%20Infrastructure%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20CA%20(AT)%20No.%20291-2017_2017-12-07%2013:12:16.pdf
Heard & Pronounced on Order	29th November, 2017

B.  Factual Background:

I.            This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (OC) against order dated 28^th September, 2017 whereby application u/s 9 of I&B Code, 2016 has been rejected.

II.            NCLAT: Appelant applied for certified copy of the impugned order after more than 30 days on 30^th October, 2017, which was supplied to him on the same date i.e. 30^th October, 2017.

III.            The delay in making such application has not been explained. The appeal, after removal of defects, was filed on 27^th November, 2017.

IV.            Thus the appeal has been preferred after 60 days of the order i.e. 28^th September, 2017.

Findings of the NCLT Bench: 

Hon’ble NCLAT states that,

An appeal can be preferred by an aggrieved person under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the I & B Code. As per sub-section (2) of Section 61 such appeal is to be filed within thirty days. As per proviso thereto, the Appellate Tribunal has power to condone the delay, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period cannot exceed fifteen days from beyond the period of thirty days.

In this case as the appeal has been preferred after 60 days of the impugned order, we hold that Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay.

For the reasons aforesaid, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay. In the result the appeal is dismissed being barred of limitation.

Conclusion:

As per sub-section (2) of Section 61 such appeal is to be filed within thirty days. As per proviso thereto, the Appellate Tribunal has power to condone the delay, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period cannot exceed fifteen days from beyond the period of thirty days.

 (Author – CS Divesh Goyal, GOYAL DIVESH & ASSOCIATES Company Secretary in Practice from Delhi and can be contacted at csdiveshgoyal@gmail.com).

 Disclaimer: The entire contents of this document have been prepared on the basis of relevant provisions and as per the information existing at the time of the preparation. Although care has been taken to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the information provided, I assume no responsibility therefore. Users of this information are expected to refer to the relevant existing provisions of applicable Laws. The user of the information agrees that the information is not a professional advice and is subject to change without notice. I assume no responsibility for the consequences of use of such information. IN NO EVENT SHALL I SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF THE INFORMATION.