National Company Law Tribunal (NCLAT) held that no one can take recourse that they have not been communicated the Judgment. It should be the duty of the council to keep track after the matter is reserved for pronouncement
In the instant case titled Kuntal Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd two issues were raised before the NCLAT for clarification, they are:
Whether there can be condonation of delay if there has been delay in filing if the appeal?
Whether there was a prior dispute with corporate debtor before the issuance of section 8?
With regard to the first issue, NCLAT held that we want to make it clear that no one can claim that the Judgment was not communicated to them. After the matter has been reserved for pronouncement, it is the responsibility of the counsel to keep track of the situation. This is not a valid reason for requesting a delay be excused. There must be a good reason for the delay, and no one can expect forgiveness out of the blue.
With regard to the second issue, NCLAT held that this bench has noted that there has been a previous dispute. The issue of whether the claim was fully and finally settled or whether the respondent was allowed to change the retention amount is a factual disagreement. Prima facie, the Corporate Debtor has been able to establish the existence of a prior dispute that the petitioner had suppressed. The information that the retention amount was being changed was also known to the petitioner, implying that there was a prior debate.
The court categorically held that:
“The intent of Legislature is very vital for interpreting any law, which can be well deduced from the words of Section 8(2)(a) of I&B Code ‘existence of a dispute if any’. It can be easily inferred that dispute shall not be limited to instances specified in the definition as provided under Section 5(6), as it has far arms, apart from pending Suit or Arbitration as provided Under Section 5(6) of IBC. The IBC is not a substitute for a recovery forum, IBC is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum and whenever there is existence of real dispute, the IBC provisions cannot be invoked.”
Hence, There was no merit to interfere in the impugned order duly passed by National Company Law Tribunal. Hence the appeal was dismissed with no order for costs.