Ajay Kumar Bhuwalka Vs Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. (NCLAT Chennai)
The Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal examined an appeal challenging an order of the Adjudicating Authority which had held that an application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was not barred by limitation and could proceed on merits. The Appellants, who described themselves as nominal directors of the Corporate Debtor, contended that they did not exercise effective control over its management, which was admittedly vested in another individual.
The appeal arose from an interlocutory application filed by the RP under Sections 43, 44, 66, and 69 of the IBC, read with the relevant regulations, seeking contribution to the assets of the Corporate Debtor and imposition of penalties. This application was filed pursuant to liberty granted by earlier orders of the Tribunal, which had disposed of a prior application as premature and directed the RP to conduct further enquiry and thereafter revive or file a fresh application.
A preliminary objection was raised by the Appellants that the application was barred by limitation, arguing that it was filed beyond the timelines contemplated under Regulation 35A of the CIRP Regulations and without a separate application for condonation of delay. They also contended that the earlier application itself had been filed beyond the prescribed period from the insolvency commencement date.
