O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

13.01.2025: I.A. No.7176 of 2024: This is an application praying for condonation of 14 days’ delay in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that when the order was passed the authorised representative of the Appellant was not present and they came to know about the impugned order by letter dated 13.08.2024 received on 27.08.2024, hence, delay was occurred in preparation and filing of appeal. Learned counsel for the Respondent opposing the condonation of delay submits that no sufficient cause has been shown in Para 3 of the application. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause shown by the Appellant in the application and the fact that order impugned was received by letter dated 13.08.2024 on 27.08.2024 and thereafter steps were taken for filing the appeal and appeal was filed on 26.09.2024. We, thus, Cont’d…/

find sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Delay condoned. I.A. No.7176 of 2024 is allowed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned counsel for the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 13.08.2024 by which application filed by the Appellant being I.A. No.218/JPR/2019 for recall of the admission order has been rejected. The CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced by an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 26.04.2019. The application was filed by M/s JFC Finance (India) Ltd., a NBFC, who had extended loan to the Corporate Debtor. On default being committed by the Corporate Debtor, Section 7 application has been filed, which was admitted. The IRP made public announcement on 28.04.2019 inviting claims. Appellant also informed the IRP of their claim of Rs.5,25,93,585/-. The claim of the Appellant was admitted. On 18.07.2019, the Appellant filed application IA No.218/JPR/2019 under Section 49, 66 and 69 of the Code praying for recall of the admission order, which application was heard and rejected by the impugned order. Inspite of Form G having issued, no Resolution Plans have come, hence, order of liquidation has been passed on 11.09.2024. The Adjudicating Authority returned a finding that Applicant could not prove that there was fraudulent initiation of CIRP and it was further noticed that claim of the Appellant amounting to Rs.5,25,93,585 was admitted, hence, there was no ground made out and recall Section 7 application.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that there were only two defaults of EMI payment by the Corporate Debtor on which basis the Financial Creditor has initiated the Section 7 proceeding. It is further submitted that in the Balance Sheet of the Corporate Debtor there was sufficient revenue, hence, it is a case of fraudulent initiation of CIRP by the Financial Creditor.

4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The Adjudicating Authority in Para 5.1 of the order has noticed following:

“5.1. It was submitted that the Customs Department has already filed its claim in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor and the same has already been admitted to the tune of Rs. 5,25,93,585/- (Rupees Five Crores Twenty- Five Lakh Ninety-Three Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty-Five Only). Further, the legal position is well settled that the provisions of the IBC shall override the provisions of any other applicable law and accordingly, the claim of the Customs Department shall be dealt in accordance with the provisions of the IBC. The Applicant has actively participated in the proceeding for the admission of its claim. Thus, the instant Application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.”

6. Further findings have been returned by the Adjudicating Authority in Para 18 of the order, which are to the following effect:

“18. In the instant case, the Customs Departinent has made bald allegations without substantiating the same qua fraudulent initiation of