(Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.)
Anupam Industries Ltd. ____________________________ Appellant;
v.
M.R. Trading Company ___________________________ Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 2022, decided on April 4, 2022
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.:—
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we find no reason to entertain this appeal whereby the appellant, the corporate debtor, seeks to question the orders passed for restoration of a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. The application filed by the respondent, being CP(IB) No. 294/NCLT/AHM/2019, was dismissed for non-prosecution by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad on 12.11.2020. The applicant (respondent herein) filed two applications on 07.01.2021 seeking; (i) Condonation of Delay of 27 days in filing for restoration; and (ii) for restoration of the main petition. By a short order dated 26.10.2021, the Tribunal granted these prayers.
3. An attempt on the part of the appellant to challenge the order so passed by the Tribunal met with disapproval of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed by a short order dated 23.12.2021.
4. Now, the aforesaid orders of condonation of delay, restoration of the original petition and dismissal of the baseless appeal are sought to be questioned in this appeal before this Court. The grounds urged are essentially to the effect that only the application of condonation of delay was registered and the Tribunal had erred in allowing both the applications by its order dated 23.12.2021. It is also sought to be contended that the Tribunal could not have condoned the delay beyond 15 days.
5. Both these grounds carry no substance and the appeal could only be dismissed at the threshold.
6. We are unable to find any logic in the argument that the Tribunal could not have condoned the delay beyond 15 days. In support of this argument, learned counsel for the appellant would refer to the prescriptions in Section 61 of the Code, which provide for filing of appeal within 30 days and limiting the period for condonation of delay in filing the appeal to 15 days. It is beyond comprehension as to how such a prescription as regards the period of filing the appeal and the limited period for condonation of delay in filing such appeal could be imported for the purpose of consideration of the prayer for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration.
7. No other provision has been brought to our notice which limits or curtails the powers of the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration. It needs hardly any reiteration that the rules or procedure are essentially intended to serve the cause of justice and are not for punishment of the parties in conduct of their matters. No further comments are required in that regard.
8. The other ground being only the matter of form, and miles away from substance, has only been noted to be rejected. As to whether a particular application was registered or not, the matter had only been of restoration and the Tribunal has ordered so, after being satisfied with the cause of delay as also with the cause of absence.
9. No case for interference is made out.
10. This appeal, being totally bereft of substance, stands dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No. 2551/2022
Anupam Industries Ltd.….Appellant(s)
v.
M.R. Trading Company.….Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No. 46877/2022-STAY APPLICATION and IA No. 46878/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 04-04-2022 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Dr. Kamlesh Vaidankar, Adv.
Mr. Sahil Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Filza Moonis, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
11. The appeal is dismissed in terms of signed order.
12. All pending applications stand disposed of.
———
