Delay in filing appeals may not be condoned unless sufficient cause is established; claims arising post-liquidation commencement date cannot be entertained.

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

COURT ROOM NO. 1,

MUMBAI BENCH

Item No. 8

APPEAL (IBC)/32(MB) 2025 IN C.P. (IB)/4488(MB)2018

CORAM:

SH. PRABHAT KUMAR SH. SUSHIL MAHADEORAO KOCHEY HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING ON 04.09.2025

NAME OF THE PARTIES: IDFC BANK LIMITED VS ASHAPURA

INTIMATES FASHION LTD

Section 9 & 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

________________________________________________________________

ORDER

APPEAL (IBC)/32(MB) 2025

1. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant is present but has not marked his appearance

in the attendance sheets.

2. This Appeal has been filed by The State of Gujarat, Through the State Tax

Officer, O/o Assistant Commissioner of State Tax challenging the decision of the Liquidator of Ashapura Intimates Fashion Ltd (“Corporate Debtor”), under Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking

following reliefs;

a. The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of 1040 days

in filing the present Appeal;

b. The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of 206 days

in filing the claim before the Liquidator, the Respondent herein, and further quash his decision in not accepting the Claim and further direct the Liquidator Respondent to register the Claim of the

Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016;

c. The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to pass any other order in the interest of justice in favour of the Appellant herein;

d. The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to award such costs as may be deemed appropriate in the facts of the matter.

3. The present Appeal is being filed by the State of Gujarat through the State Tax Officer, Unit No. 73, for seeking condonation of delay in filing its claim in Form C pursuant to the Public Announcement dt. 08.10.2020 published as per Regulation No. 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 pursuant to an order dt. 05.10.2020 initiating liquidation proceedings in the case of Corporate Debtor Ashapura Intimates Fashion Limited.

4. This Bench by an order dated 28.06.2019 admitted the Petition (CP 1B No.

4488/ MB/ 2018) under Section 7 of the Code initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor and thereafter, the Liquidation proceedings commenced on 5.10.2020.

5. The Applicant filed its claim in Form C dated 22.9.2022 for a sum of Rs.

2,44,54,516/- along with interest @ 18% after the claim date. This claim pertains to demand raised by the Applicant pursuant to order(s) dated 8.1.2021 (dispatched on 16.1.2021) passed in assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2016-17 and June 17 quarter. The details are said claims are as under:

6. As regards delay for condonation of delay in filing present appeal, the applicant has explained the reasons for delay stating that “the office of the Appellant sought authorisation from the concerned authorities to file appropriate proceedings before this Hon’ble Tribunal. There are multiple departments involved in decision making process for filing Appeal including GST department, legal department and Finance Department. Due to administrative procedures and decisions, it took some time to collect information and to take further steps for approaching this Hon’ble Tribunal”.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pathupati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs & Ors.

vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) – (2024) 4 S.C.R. 241, had occasion to consider the expression ‘sufficient cause’ occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In this case, an Appeal was filed after lapse of 5/6 years in the High Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act challenging an Award given by the Deputy Collector Land Acquisition. While dealing with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, following was laid down in paragraphs 12 and 13:

“12. In view of the above provision, the appeal which is preferred after the expiry of the limitation is liable to be dismissed. The use of the word ‘shall’ in the aforesaid provision connote