Appeal Against AA’s Order with 400 Days Delay & Non-fulfilment of Sec. 14 Limitation Act Conditions was to be Rejected | NCLAT

Case Details: SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. v. Kalpataru Properties (P.) Ltd. - [2023] 152 taxmann.com 152 (NCLAT-New Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson & Barun Mitra, Technical Member
  • Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv., Anirban Bhattacharya, Siddhant Buxy, Ms Priyanka Vora, Krishna Sumanth, Rohan Naik & Sathvik Chandrasekaran, Advs. for the Appellant.
  • Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Adv., Dr Sunil Mittal, Ms Anu Tiwari, Ms Geetika Sharma, Sudhir Kumar, Arshit Anand, Advs., Abhijeet Sinha, Shahan Ulla & Nikunj Mahajan, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, an agreement was executed between the corporate debtor and R1 for the sale of a plot of land to R1, however, the corporate debtor failed to perform the same. The appellant (i.e. financial creditor) of the corporate debtor filed a section 7 application, which was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT).

R1 filed an application seeking direction to RP of the corporate debtor to transfer the said land to R1 and the same was allowed by the NCLT vide the impugned order dated 8-10-2021.

Aggrieved by the said order, ‘I’, a member of the CoC of the corporate debtor filed an appeal, in which an intervention application was filed by the appellant. However, the said appeal was dismissed and the intervention application of the appellant was also rejected by the instant Tribunal.

The appellant filed an instant appeal dated 7-1-2023 against the impugned order along with an application for condonation of delay so as to exclude the period of 400 days giving the benefit of section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 as he was prosecuting civil remedy by way of filing an application in appeal filed by ‘I’.

It was noted that the intervention application of the appellant was heard on merits and said the application had no defect of jurisdiction nor rejection was on ‘other cause of like nature’.

NCLAT Held

The NCLAT held that the condition required under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was not fulfilled and there was no reason to condone a delay of more than 400 days in filling an instant appeal and, therefore, the same was to be dismissed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Kalpataru Properties (P.) Ltd. v. Srigopal Choudhary, Resolution Professional for Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. [2023] 152 taxmann.com 151 (NCLT-Mum.) (para 36) affirmed [See Annex]

List of Cases Referred to

• • M. P. Steel Corporation v. CCE [2015] 57 taxmann.com 399/51 GST 435 (SC) (para 14)
  • Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. [2021] 125 taxmann.com 194/166 SCL 583 (SC) (para 15)
  • Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principal Secy. Irrigation Department [2008] 7 SCC 169 (para 17)
  • India Electric Works Ltd. v. James Mantosh [1971] 1 SCC 24 (para 19)
  • Roshanlal Kuthalia v. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi [1975] 4 SCC 628 (para 21)
  • Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. [2004] 3 SCC 458 (para 22)
  • Corporation of Calcutta v. Pulin Chandra Daw AIR 1977 Cal. 443 (para 30)
  • Kashiram v. Santokhbai AIR 1958 MP 91 (para 31)
  • Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Shailesh Verma [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1124 of 2022, dated 4-11-2022] (para 35).