Condonation of delay cannot be granted on the ground of Non- communication of judgement: NCLAT
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. The judgment passed by the NCLAT New Delhi, in its decision in Kuntal Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 542 of 2020 ) by Hon’ble shri Justice Venugopal M.
The facts of the case were such that – the Appellant is occupied with the business of common works, completing underlying work for a wide range of building and water and sewerage treatment plants redesign works other than other common development and has obliged tremendous and different customers all over India. The Corporate debtor moved toward the Operational Creditor for benefiting its administrations and work orders dated 04.10.2011 and 14.10.2013 were given for Rs. 47,50,000/ – and Rs. 2,07,00,000/ – separately. The averments were made by the operational creditor that it raised solicitations and kept a running record with the corporate debtor. Incomplete installments were gotten from the corporate debtor every now and then and post-change the operational creditor is guaranteeing that there is a remarkable responsibility of Rs. 14,89,967/ – including maintenance measure of Rs. 6,74,247/ – from the corporate debtor.
The criticized request has examined the letter dated 07.10.2015relating to full and last settlement yet has not arbitrated two issues engaged with the common settlement letter dated 07.10.2015, consequently the operational creditor is profoundly biased and bothered. There are two issues emerging out of the said settlement letter dated 07-10-2015 which are as under
“….last payment against 5th and final bill for STP work and accepted for a full and final value for Rs. 1,21,73,542/- exclusive of VAT, Service Tax, as applicable (subject to the receiving of final payment against CURRENT BILL) ….
“….We further confirm that we will not raise any claim at any time ion future against the company for all the works carried out by us at “Hotel the Lalit, New Delhi-1” EXCEPT RETENTION MONEY AMOUNT (IF DEDUCED)….”
It is additionally presented by the operational creditor that the reviled request passed by AA on 30.01.2020 has not been imparted or served upon the operational creditor, however the equivalent was noticed and downloaded from the website page of NCLT, Delhi on 02.03.2020. Hence there has been a deferral of 13 days caused in filling the current appeal. For this an application U/S 5 of the Limitation Act looking for approbation of deferral under IA No. 1388 of 2020 is filled before this Appellate Tribunal.
It is presented by the insight for the operational creditor that there is no rule/practice for Judgments to be authoritatively imparted in NCLT. After a matter is held for a declaration the equivalent appears in the reason list the day it is to be articulated, of which the Counsel’s follow along. The operational creditor is quite concerning how it got the data of the Judgment being articulated just as no confirmation of its being downloaded on 02.03.2020 (day of expiry of the limit) has been recorded. The operational creditor filled the current interest interestingly on/after 13.03.2020 and there is no adequate reason appeared to clarify the asserted deferral of 13 days.
This is not a valid ground for requesting the condonation of delay. There should be a sufficient cause for the delay and no one can claim condonation as a matter of right.