Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1984
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dinesh Maheshwari, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Anupam Industries Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
M. R. Trading Company - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2551 Of 2022
Decided On : 04-04-2022
For the Appellants : Dr. Kamlesh Vaidankar, Adv. Mr. Sahil Chopra, Adv. Mr. Nitin Gupta, Adv. Ms. Filza Moonis, AOR
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 9 - Restoration of petition - Appeal dismissed - The corporate debtor sought to question orders related to the restoration of a petition dismissed for non-prosecution. The Tribunal's condonation of delay and restoration of the original petition were upheld despite challenges from the appellant, emphasizing the powers of the Tribunal to condone delay as rooted in the interests of justice. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Appeals - Grounds - The argument that the Tribunal could not condone delay beyond 15 days was dismissed, reinforcing that rules serve the cause of justice, not punitive measures. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged an order restoring a petition after it was dismissed for non-prosecution. The response included delays in filing and subsequent restoration applications.
Findings of Court:
The court found no logic in the appellant’s arguments against the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal on grounds of lacking substantive merit.
Issues: The primary issues involved the legitimacy of the Tribunal's power to condone delays beyond the stated 15 days and the procedural concerns surrounding the registration of applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that procedural rules must facilitate justice and does not impede Tribunal's authority over delay condonation in restoration applications.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. restoration of petition under insolvency code. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenges to tribunal's restoration order. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. tribunal's discretion on condoning delays. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. dismissal of appeal for lack of substance. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we find no reason to entertain this appeal whereby the appellant, the corporate debtor, seeks to question the orders passed for restoration of a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. The application filed by the respondent, being CP(IB) No. 294/NCLT/AHM/2019, was dismissed for non-prosecution by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad on 12.11.2020. The applicant (respondent herein) filed two applications on 07.01.2021 seeking; (i) Condonation of Delay of 27 days in filing for restoration; and (ii) for restoration of the main petition. By a short order dated 26.10.2021, the Tribunal granted these prayers.
3. An attempt on the part of the appellant to challenge the order so passed by the Tribunal met with disapproval of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed by a short order dated 23.12.2021.
4. Now, the aforesaid orders of condonation of delay, restoration of the original petition and dismissal of the baseless appeal are sought to be questioned in this appeal before this Court. The grounds urged are essentially to the effect that only the application of condonation of delay was registered and the Tribunal had erred in allowing both the applications by its order dated 23.12.2021. It is also sought to be contended that the Tribunal could not have condoned the delay beyond 15 days.
5. Both these grounds carry no substance and the appeal could only be dismissed at the threshold.
6. We are unable to find any logic in the argument that the Tribunal could not have condoned the delay beyond 15 days. In support of this argument, learned counsel for the appellant would refer to the prescriptions in Section 61 of the Code, which provide for filing of appeal within 30 days and limiting the period for condonation of delay in filing the appeal to 15 days. It is beyond comprehension as to how such a prescription as regards the period of filing the appeal and the limited period for condonation of delay in filing such appeal could be imported for the purpose of consideration of the prayer for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration.
7. No other provision has been brought to our notice which limits or curtails the powers of the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration. It needs hardly any reiteration that the rules or procedure are essentially intended to serve the cause of justice and are not for punishment of the parties in conduct of their matters. No further comments are required in that regard.
8. The other ground being only the matter of form, and miles away from substance, has only been noted to be rejected. As to whether a particular application was registered or not, the matter had only been of restoration and the Tribunal has ordered so, after being satisfied with the cause of delay as also with the cause of absence.
9. No case for interference is made out.
10. This appeal, being totally bereft of substance, stands dismissed.
