NCLAT can only condone max 15-day delay in filing appeals: SC
Live Events
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) can only condone delays in filing appeals up to a maximum of 15 days. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) prescribed strict timelines for filing appeals and taking legal action to ensure insolvency proceedings were not misused to recover time-barred debts Condonation of delay means allowing a court or authority to overlook a delay in filing an appeal or application, even if it's beyond the prescribed time limit."The proviso to Section 61(2) clearly limits the NCLAT's jurisdiction to condone delay only up to 15 days beyond the initial 30-day period. Where a statute expressly limits the period within which delay may be condoned, an Appellate Tribunal cannot exceed that limit," the bench said.The top court said the appellate mechanism under IBC is strictly time-bound by design to preserve the speed and certainty of the insolvency resolution process."Time is of the essence in statutory appeals , and the prescribed limitation period must be strictly adhered to. Even a delay of a single day is fatal if the statute does not provide for its condonation. As held by us, the NCLAT has no power to condone delay beyond the period stipulated under the statute. Allowing condonation in such cases would defeat the legislative intent and open the floodgates to belated and potentially frivolous petitions, thereby undermining the efficacy and finality of the appellate mechanism," it said.The judgement came on an appeal challenging an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which condoned the delay in filing the appeal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Bank of Baroda top bidder in Jet Airways BKC office insolvency auction
In a significant development under the ongoing Jet Airways insolvency proceedings, public sector lender Bank of Baroda has emerged as the highest bidder for the airline's 83,000 sq ft office space in commercial tower Godrej BKC in Mumbai 's business district Bandra-Kurla Complex , said people familiar with the development. The bank has placed a bid of Rs 370 crore, outpacing other contenders in the auction held under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. Last month, a government-appointed liquidator had put an entire office floor owned by the defunct aviation company in this tower on the block with a reserve price of Rs 335.24 crore. Following this, the liquidator is now expected to inform global alternative investment major Brookfield Asset Management that holds the right of first refusal (ROFR) with a 15-day period to match the highest bidder if it intends to acquire the property. According to sources, Brookfield is likely to exercise the ROFR for the property. In 2020, as part of Jet Airways ' insolvency proceedings, Brookfield had acquired the company's two office floors in the building for Rs 490 crore. These offices are currently occupied by marquee tenants including World Bank and PayPal. The transaction involved around 180,000 sq ft office space spread across the third and fourth floors, along with rights to 138 car parking spaces. Brookfield holds the ROFR for this additional office space too as part of the agreement entered then. The currently vacant office on the second floor of the commercial tower was sealed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai owing to unpaid dues. On April 28, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) ordered the civic body to de-seal the property and halt recovery actions. The asset is being sold on an 'as is where is' basis under the IBC and all applicable taxes, dues and transfer charges will be borne by the successful bidder. ET's separate email queries to the liquidator Satish Kumar Gupta, Bank of Baroda remained unanswered, while Brookfield declined to comment. The e-auction for the property along with 70 exclusive car parking slots in the tower was scheduled on June 2 and prospective bidders were expected to submit an earnest money deposit of Rs 32.5 crore. The Godrej BKC building, a 19-storey commercial tower, was developed in 2011 through a joint venture between Godrej Properties and Jet Airways . Jet Airways had originally purchased the land from the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority in 2008 for Rs 826 crore before collaborating with Godrej Properties for the project's development.
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC deadline nears, illegal buildings in protected Aravalis face bulldozers
GURUGRAM : Just a month-and-a-half to go for a Supreme Court-ordered deadline, the forest department and Faridabad administration on Wednesday started a 15-day demolition drive to remove all illegal construction and encroachments from protected Aravali land in the district. Officials said around a dozen banquet halls, boundary walls, gates and farmhouses that were built in Anangpur village of Faridabad were razed on Wednesday. This area is protected under Section 4 (special orders) of the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), which bars construction and any non-forest activities in forests. "We have started the demolition drive. We appeal to people to remove illegal encroachment themselves," a senior forest official said. Haryana govt ordered the demolition drive after the Supreme Court gave the state a three-month extension to clear protected Aravalis of illegal construction. SC, in July 2022, had ruled that all Aravali land under PLPA (special orders) should be treated as forest, with provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act applicable there, and any illegal construction should be demolished. Despite clear directives, Haryana over the years did not complete the task, having razed some 30 structures in four villages of Faridabad since the 2022 ruling. The apex court will take up the case next on Sept 8. The 15-day time frame was given to the Faridabad administration after a meeting chaired by chief secretary Anurag Rastogi on June 7. "All unauthorised constructions, including boundary walls — whether built before or after the 2021 survey—must be demolished within 15 days. The Municipal Corporation of Faridabad will oversee the removal of debris, with all costs to be borne by the property owners," read a document on minutes of the meeting. The Faridabad district magistrate will have to submit an action-taken report to the chief secretary, who also said the DM will be held accountable for any delay. Rastogi will hold another review meeting on June 27. On Wednesday, environmentalists said Faridabad was not the only Haryana district where protected Aravali forests have been encroached on. "Although demolition has begun in four villages of Faridabad after nearly three years, the order actually applies to special orders of Section 4 PLPA on all of Haryana, not just these villages. So far, no other districts have initiated the drive," said Sunil Harsana, an ecologist and wildlife expert. After SC's 2022 order, Haryana forest department had carried out a survey to identify illegal construction and found that 6,973 structures – most of them banquet halls and residential settlements – were built over protected PLPA land in four villages of Faridabad. A majority of these were in Anangpur (5,948) and the remaining in Ankhir, Lakkarpur, and Mewla Maharajpur. No such survey has been organised in Gurgaon. But activists allege that illegal construction is rampant in the Aravalis of Sohna, Raisina and Gwalpahari in the city, all of which are also protected by PLPA's special orders.
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Homebuyer seeking refund can't ask builder to reimburse loan interest: SC
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has held that a homebuyer, who seeks refund due to delay in completion of a project, cannot claim that a developer also reimburse the amount paid as interest on home loan. The buyer is only entitled to the principal amount paid to a company and a 'compensation' in terms of the interest on the said amount as per the agreement, it said. It set aside a consumer court order directing the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority to reimburse the interest paid by a homebuyer to a bank on home loan in addition to refunding the principal amount with 8% interest. SC: How buyer funds flat buy not developer's consideration A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B Varale said there cannot be multiple heads to grant damages and interest over and above what is agreed upon between the homebuyer and the builder. Referring to various SC verdicts, the bench said there were no exceptional or strong reasons for directing GMADA to pay the interest on the loan taken by the homebuyer. The bench said, "Whether buyers of the flat do so by utilising their savings, taking a loan for such purpose or securing the required finances by any other permissible means, is not a consideration that the developer of the project is required to keep in mind. "For, so far as they are concerned, such a consideration is irrelevant. The one who is buying a flat is a consumer, and the one who is building it is a service provider. That is the only relationship between the parties. "If there is a deficiency or delay in service, the consumer is entitled to be compensated for the same. Repayment of the entire principal amount along with 8% interest thereon, as stipulated in the contract, alongside the clarification that there shall be no other liability on the authority, sufficiently meets this requirement." In this case, the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had directed GMADA to refund the entire amount of Rs 41 lakh along with interest at the rate of 8%, apart from compensation of Rs 60,000 to the buyer for the mental tension and harassment suffered by him, in addition to reimbursing the interest paid by the buyer to banks on home loan. The court said once the parties had agreed for a particular consequence of delay in handing over of possession, then there had to be exceptional and strong reasons to award compensation at more than the agreed rate.
