Case Title: Safire Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr
The Supreme Court reiterated that an appeal against the order of NCLT shall be filed before the NCLAT within a period of 30 days and the appellate tribunal can only condone delay for a period of 15 days.
The brief facts that gave rise to this appeal are that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) of Maruti Koatsu Cylinders Limited was initiated before National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad on 26.04.2018. The resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors on 04.04.2019 and was also approved by the NCLT on 22.10.2019.
Thereafter, Respondent No.1, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner filed a claim before the Resolution Professional on 09.10.2019 regarding the provident fund dues which were not considered. An appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal was filed on 14.12.2020 by Respondent No. 1 against the order dated 22.10.2019 approving the resolution plan. By an Order dated 19.01.2021, notice was issued by the NCLAT in this appeal, i.e., a delay of about 388 days was apparently condoned.
The appellant was aggrieved by the issuance of notice by NCLAT in the appeal filed by Respondent No.1, contrary to Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
It was vehemently contended by the appellant that by virtue of Section 61 of the code, an appeal before the NCLAT can be filed within a period of 30 days and the delay of only 15 days can be condoned by NCLAT.
The appellant relied upon Kalpraj Dharamshi & Anr. vs. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. & Anr to support its contention. The Apex Court in this case had laid down that an appeal against the order of NCLT shall be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date on which the order was passed by the NCLT. The Appellate Tribunal has the power to extend the period of limitation by another 15 days.
In light of the judgment relied upon by the appellant, the Court in the instant case observed thus:
“In view of the aforesaid judgment, we are of the considered view that the Appellate Tribunal committed an error in issuing notice in an appeal that was filed by Respondent No.1 with a delay of 388 days”.