# In the matter of Dhirendra Kumar Vs. Randstand India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. CA(AT)(Insolvency) No. 751-2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-08-07. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00372. The appeal was filed by the Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor against an order passed…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 7 Aug 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00372
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/dhirendra-kumar-vs-randstand-india-pvt-ltd-anr-ca-5cb096ad

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed by the Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Bengaluru Bench, which admitted an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed by Randstand India Private Limited (Operational Creditor) against Camson Bio Technologies Limited. The appellant sought condonation of a 360-day delay, citing a writ petition filed in the High Court of Karnataka challenging the admission order. The High Court disposed of the matter, after which the present appeal was preferred. The appellant requested exclusion of the period during which the matter was pending before the High Court for calculating the limitation period.

## Facts

Randstand India Private Limited, an Operational Creditor, filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Camson Bio Technologies Limited, the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench, admitted the application. The Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor filed an appeal against this order, seeking condonation of a 360-day delay. The Corporate Debtor had previously filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Karnataka challenging the admission order, during which a stay was granted, and the Corporate Debtor deposited Rs.36,83,660.30 in favor of the Operational Creditor. The High Court subsequently disposed of the matter. The Appellant argued that the period of pendency before the High Court should be

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond 15 days after the …

**Ratio:** The proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 61 of the I&B Code does not empower the

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that Section 238A of the I&B Code prescribes limitation, and in

…

**Interpretation:** Section 61(2) of the I&B Code sets a strict timeline for filing appeals,

…

**Application:** In this case, the delay was 360 days. Since the delay exceeded the 15-day limit

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; A.I.S. C…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Dhirendra…
- **Respondents:** Camson Bio…; M/s Randstand…

## Timeline

- **2018-06-14 — Order by Adjudicating…**: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Bengaluru Bench, passed an…
- **2018-06-14 — Impugned order of…**: The impugned order of…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/dhirendra-kumar-vs-randstand-india-pvt-ltd-anr-ca-5cb096ad