
NCLT grants exclusion of 854 days to Resolution Professional; directs completion of CIRP
The RP sought exclusion of the time it took for NCLT to decide the applications filed under Section 19 of the IBC regarding the non-cooperation by the Company.
The RP sought exclusion of the time it took for NCLT to decide the applications filed under Section 19 of the IBC regarding the non-cooperation by the Company.
In the instant matter, appellant was a poor person having no source of earning and there was no one in the immediate family to take care which caused delay in filing the appeal.
The Court was sympathetic to the difficulty cast on the petitioner on account of restricted movement due to hostile weather and old age, but the Court did not understand as to what precluded his counsel from acting on his behalf.
The appellants cannot seek condonation of such colossal delay under the pretext of professional misconduct of their previous counsel. It is not only the colossal length of delay; it is the unacceptable explanation of the delay, which must be discarded.
“It is now trite law that State agencies cannot hide behind the conventional excuse of bureaucratic delays and inefficiency in the State’s capacity, to condone delays.”
Forcing the parties to file a written statement or to complete the pleadings during the process of mediation will prevent the parties in freely communicating with each other, which they have not been able to do since the dispute started.
“Merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented”.
The Tribunal in the impugned decision reasoned that- whenever Government for public purpose bifurcates districts, a complex situation arises and on account of the same sometimes issues like the present, escape the notice of the Government authorities therefore, good cause for condoning delay of more than 22 years was made out.
APTEL said that the sufficient cause to be shown by an applicant, for the delay to be condoned, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, it would not be justified to apply a uniform criterion to determine whether the cause shown is sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Entry 31 of Schedule of Fees prescribed by the NCLT Rules stipulates that the fee for obtaining true certified copies of final orders passed to parties other than the concerned parties under Rule 50 shall be Rs 5 per page. The stipulation of Rupees five per page in Entry 31 excludes “the concerned parties under Rule 50”.
State to inquire whether the Chairman of the quasi-judicial body like the Tribunal in passing such orders which are contrary to the settled proposition of law and decisions of the Supreme Court, should be permitted to continue on such a senior position.
If the power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way.
An update on new additions of case laws to SCC’s High Court Cases volume.
If negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and cause shown is sufficient then we are of the view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adopting a liberal approach”.
The Court was of the view that the petition and the accompanying application seeking an extension of time were filed and registered in the registry of this Court when CrPC, 1973 was in force, hence, the matter would fall under the scope of Section 531(2)(a) and this petition should be adjudicated through the provisions of CrPC, 1973.
Gauhati High Court holds statutory bar to remarry u/s 15 HMA cannot be extended by filing application seeking condonation of delay to challenge the divorce decree.
Supreme Court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession, change of land use, and creation of third-party rights till fresh acquisition proceedings are completed
The Court stated that, while it is important that litigants including the State, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered even- handedly; however, a little latitude is considered by the Courts when the State is the seeking condonation of delay.
Allahabad High Court noted that while the appellants alleged their counsel failed to inform them about the case’s dismissal, there’s no evidence they actively sought updates from the counsel during the six-year period.
“The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not.”