AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • 03.07.2018: Section 61(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as I&B Code)
  • Section 61 of I&B Code
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
  • 03.07.2018: Section 61(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as I&B Code)
  • Section 61 of I&B Code
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code). The appeal was submitted beyond the maximum prescribed limitation period for filing such appeals. The appellant contended that the delay was due to the intervening vacation period, but the tribunal noted that the registry and Vacation Bench were operational during this time.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether an appeal filed beyond the maximum prescribed period of 45 days under Section 61(2) of the I&B Code can be entertained.
  2. Whether delay caused by vacation periods can be considered sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The appeal could not be preferred within the extended period of limitation due to the intervention of vacations spanning the month of June.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed Section 61(2) of the I&B Code, which prescribes a strict maximum time frame of 45 days for filing an appeal—30 days initially, with a possible condonation of delay not exceeding 15 days if sufficient cause is shown. The court found that the appeal was filed beyond this maximum period and thus was barred by limitation. The appellant's contention that vacation periods prevented timely filing was rejected because the tribunal's registry and Vacation Bench were functioning during the vacations. Therefore, no sufficient cause was established to condone the delay.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation. This ruling enforces the strict limitation period under Section 61(2) of the I&B Code, emphasizing that the maximum 45-day period for filing appeals is not extendable on any grounds, including vacation periods. The direct effect is the dismissal of the present appeal, with no new precedent set beyond reaffirming the statutory limitation framework.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    State Bank of India v. MBL Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.

    03.07.2018: Section 61(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as I&B Code) prescribes period of 30 days for filing of an appeal by a person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The proviso to the sub-section provides that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of said period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed 15 days. From a plain reading of the provision it is manifestly clear that the appeal has to be preferred within 30 days but delay not exceeding 15 days can be condoned in preferring the appeal provided the appellant is able to satisfy this Appellant Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of 30 days. This provision unambiguously provides a maximum time frame of 45 days for filing of appeal, which is not further extendable on any ground whatsoever.

    2. Admittedly, the instant appeal has been filed under Section 61 of I&B Code well beyond the maximum prescribed period of 45 days. Same being hit by the limitation clause under the said provision is not maintainable. Submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that the appeal could not be preferred within extended period of limitation due to the intervention of vacations spanning the month of June has no merit as the Registry of this Appellate Tribunal was functioning throughout the vacation period and Vacation Bench was available.

    3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as barred by limitation. [Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial) am/uk Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 336 of 2018

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    State Bank of India v. MBL Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.
    (Jul 3, 2018)