Delhi HC refuses to give an opinion on the factual issue pending before NCLAT

Case Details: Power Infrastructure India v. Union of India - [2023] 147 taxmann.com 554 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Prathiba M. Singh, J.
  • Ms Fereshte D. Sethna, Ms Shivangi Sanghvi, Mohit Tiwari & Ashish Mishra, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC, Ms Srishti Rawat, Deepak Khurana, Ms Nishtha Wadhwa, Ashish Verma, Advs. & M. Theepa GP for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner had filed an appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 27.09.2022. The same was stated to be listed before the NCLAT on 09.12.2022. However, on 21.10.2022, the NCLAT issued an order bearing (F.No.10/37/2018-NCLAT) requiring the physical filing of documents before the NCLAT for the purpose of computation of limitation.

Pursuant to which, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner was that the maximum limitation period of 45 days for filing an appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016) had expired on 12.11.2022 which was a Saturday.

The petitioner had e-filed an appeal on 11.11.2022, (Friday), and physically filed it on the following Monday i.e. on 14.11.2022 and, thus, the appeal might be dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ seeking the quashing of the NCLAT’s order dated 21.10.2022 to the High Court.

Sec 61 of IBC read as follows –

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013, any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since the matter was pending adjudication before the NCLAT, which was a duly constituted Tribunal under section 410, there was no need to give an opinion on the factual issue of whether the appeal was within the limitation period or not.

In this regard, the High Court disposed of the instant petition, leaving the petitioner’s remedies open in accordance with the law upon the decision being taken by the NCLAT.