The Appellate Tribunal cannot condone delays exceeding 15 days as per Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. I.A. No. 2971/2024 has been filed by the Appellant praying for condonation of 26 days delay in filing the Appeal. The Adjudicating Authority by Impugned Order dated 26.02.2024 admitted the Section 95 Application filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) against the Appellant, Sanjay Jain filed under Section 95.

2. In Section 95 Application, Notices were issued to the Appellant on

06.01.2023, which returned unserved. Adjudicating Authority had passed an Order permitting substituted service by Publication in the Newspapers.

Notices were published in the 2 Newspapers. Adjudicating Authority passed an Order on 23.11.2023 holding that despite service of Notice by substituted mode, no one has appeared, and the Personal Guarantor is set an Ex-Parte.

After the said Order, Section 95 Application was admitted by Order dated 26.02.2024.

3. This Appeal has been e-filed by the Appellant on 22.04.2024 with delay of 26 days. Appellant in his I.A. No.2971/2024 has prayed for following prayers:

“1) Pass an Order for condonation of delay of 26 days in filing the Captioned Appeal;

2) Pass any other further order as this Appellate Tribunal may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.”

4. Notices were issued on delay condonation Application by Order dated 22.05.2024. A Reply to the delay condonation Application was filed.

3 of 13 Rejoinder Affidavit has also been filed by the Appellant to the Reply filed by the Bank. Written Submissions has also been filed by the Parties.

5. We have heard Mrs. Ranjana Gavai, Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Ankita Bajpai for the SBI and Mr. Anand M. Mishra Counsel for the Resolution Professional (RP).

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant came to know about the Impugned Order only on 30.03.2024 when Appellant had approached the Punjab National Bank (PNB) for One Time settlement (OTS).

Appellant thereafter has filed the Appeal within 30 days of the knowledge. It is submitted that Appeal having been filed within 30 days from date of knowledge is not barred by time. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant was never served any Notice in Section 95 Application which was filed by the SBI. It is submitted that the Notices which were issued in Section 95 Application where notice sent on address of the Appellant which is 1 – 42, Phase – I, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi, which was address given in the Guarantee Deed executed in the Year 2011–12. Notice sent on the said address had received back unserved. Appellant has not resided on the said address, since the said Assets were sold in the Year 2012 itself, which has been noted by the Order dated 05.03.2019, passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in the matter of `Bank of Baroda’ V s. `M/s. Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd. ’ reported in RC/327/2015 in OA/203/2013. It is submitted that Bank was well aware that said address is no more address of the Appellant, but Notices were sent at wrong address to suppress and oust the rights of the Appellant. In the proceeding before the DRT, Appellant has shown its address 4 of 13 which was different from Ashok Vihar’s address. Appellant having never been served, service by any other substituted mode is invalid, since there was no basis to suggest that defendant was avoiding service. A fraud was played by the Bank and without serving the Appellant, the Ex-Parte Order has been passed.

7. Learned Counsel for the Bank refuting the submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellants have given its address i.e., I–42, Phase–I, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi to the Bank, which was mentioned in the Guarantee Deed executed by the Appellant. It was the responsibility of the Appellant to inform the Bank about the updated address and email ID. The Bank has served the Appellant through substituted service i.e., Publication of the 2 Newspapers i.e., the Statesman and Rashtriya Sahara Hindi, Delhi, which is sufficient service. Appellant has deliberately avoided to a