The case involves an appeal filed by Shree Ganapati Power and Transformers against an order dated 27.04.2022, where an application filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was dismissed. The appeal, CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 811 of 2022, was filed with a delay, leading to an application (I.A. No. 5695 of 2023) seeking condonation of this delay. The appellant contended that the delay was due to summer holidays in Calcutta High Court and closure of the advocate's office. The respondent opposed the condonation, arguing that the appeal was barred by limitation under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the hard copy of the appeal was filed after the prescribed period. The central issue revolves around whether the
…Shree Ganapati Power and Transformers (Appellant) filed an appeal against an impugned order dated 27.04.2022, which dismissed their application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days. The Appellant sought condonation of delay, citing summer holidays in Calcutta High Court and closure of their advocate's office as reasons. The Respondent, Vijeta Projects And Infrastructure Ltd., opposed the condonation, arguing the appeal was barred by limitation under Section 61 of the IBC. The certified copy of the impugned order was prepared on 29.04.2022 and received by the Appellant on 09.05.2022. The appeal was e-filed on 30.05.2022, and the hard copy was filed on 20.06.2022. The core dispute revolves around whether
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Tribunal passed the impugned order…
The certified copy of…
The case involves an appeal filed by Shree Ganapati Power and Transformers against an order dated 27.04.2022, where an application filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was dismissed. The appeal, CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 811 of 2022, was filed with a delay, leading to an application (I.A. No. 5695 of 2023) seeking condonation of this delay. The appellant contended that the delay was due to summer holidays in Calcutta High Court and closure of the advocate's office. The respondent opposed the condonation, arguing that the appeal was barred by limitation under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the hard copy of the appeal was filed after the prescribed period. The central issue revolves around whether the
…Shree Ganapati Power and Transformers (Appellant) filed an appeal against an impugned order dated 27.04.2022, which dismissed their application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days. The Appellant sought condonation of delay, citing summer holidays in Calcutta High Court and closure of their advocate's office as reasons. The Respondent, Vijeta Projects And Infrastructure Ltd., opposed the condonation, arguing the appeal was barred by limitation under Section 61 of the IBC. The certified copy of the impugned order was prepared on 29.04.2022 and received by the Appellant on 09.05.2022. The appeal was e-filed on 30.05.2022, and the hard copy was filed on 20.06.2022. The core dispute revolves around whether
…The Tribunal passed the impugned order…
The certified copy of…