NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITED versus MR. ANIL KOHLI, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR DUNAR FOODS LIMITED

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1024 · Decided: 14-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1024
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITED
v.
MR. ANIL KOHLI, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR
DUNAR FOODS LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 6187 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.61(2) – Appeals
and Appellate Authority – In response to the public announcement
by Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) inviting the claims from
the creditors of the corporate debtor, the appellant submitted claim
of Rs.673.85 crores – The IRP rejected the claim of the appellant
on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the
appellant and the corporate debtor and no letter of guarantee was
issued by the corporate debtor in favour of the appellant – Appellant
challenged the rejection before the National Company Law Tribunal
(NCLT), which upheld the decision of the IRP – Aggrieved, the
appellant preferred appeal before the National Company Law
Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) – There was a delay of 44 days in
preferring the said appeal – The NCLAT dismissed the appeal on
the ground that Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone
the delay beyond 15 days from 30 days and appeal is barred by
limitation – On appeal, held: As per s.61(2) of the IB Code, the
appeal is required to be preferred within a period of 30 days – The
Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed beyond the 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 – So,
the appeal before the NCLAT was required to be filed within a
maximum period of 45 days (30 days + 15 days) – However, in the
instant case there was delay of 44 days beyond a total period of 45
days – It is settled legal position that the law of limitation may harshly
affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour
when the Statute so prescribes – The Court has no power to extend
the period of limitation on equitable grounds – It cannot be said
that the NCLAT has committed any error in dismissing the appeal
on the ground of limitation by observing that it has no jurisdiction
and/or power to condone the delay exceeding 15 days.
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 1024
1024
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1025
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the
appellant herein has challenged the order passed by the
adjudicating authority dated 6.3.2019 affirming the decision of
the resolution professional of rejection of the claim of the appellant
before the NCLAT. The appeal preferred before the NCLAT was
under Section 61(2) of the IB Code. As per Section 61(2) of the
IB Code, the appeal was required to be preferred within a period
of thirty days. Therefore, the limitation period prescribed to prefer
an appeal was 30 days. However, as per the proviso to Section
61(2) of the Code, the Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to
be filed after the expiry of the 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. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal
has no jurisdiction at all to condone the delay exceeding 15 days
from the period of 30 days, as contemplated under Section 61(2)
of the IB Code. [Para 7][1034-A-D]
2. In the present case, even the appellant applied for the
certified copy of the order passed by the adjudicating authority
on 8.4.2019, i.e., after a delay of 34 days. Therefore, even the
certified copy of the order passed by the adjudicating authority
was applied beyond the prescribed period of limitation, i.e., beyond
30 days. The certified copy of the order was received by the
appellant on 11.04.2019 and the appeal before the NCLAT was
preferred on 24.06.2019, i.e., after a delay of 44 days. As the
Appellate Tribunal can condone the delay up to a period of 15
days only, the Appellate Tribunal refused to condone the delay
which was beyond 15 days from completion of 30 days, i.e., in the
present case delay of 44 days and consequently dismissed the
appeal. Therefore, as such, it cannot be said that the learned
Appellate Tribunal committed any error in not condoning the delay
of 44 days, which was beyond the delay of 15 days which cannot
be condoned as per Section 61(2) of the IB Code. [Para 7.1][1034-
F-H; 1035-A]
3. It is true that in a given case there may arise a situation
where the applicant/appellant may not be in a position to file the
appeal even within a statutory period of li

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.