M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Mr.Sutanu Sinha, - It is relevant to observe that in provisions where the legislature intended to prescribe a strict bar (e.g. Section 61(2) IBC, Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Section 125 of the Electricity Act), the legislative intent was expressly stated. In contrast, no such embargo exists in Section 42 of the IBC or Regulation 21A of Liquidation Regulations. Hence, condonation of delay is permissible when justified on facts.

  NCLT Hyd-2 (2025.07.16) in M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Mr.Sutanu Sinha, [IA(IBC) 1154 of 2020 in C.P (IB) No.294/7/HDB/2017],held that;

• In Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank Ltd. (2021)7 SCC 313, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that proceedings under the IBC are subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, including Section 5, unless expressly excluded.

• The IBC is a beneficial legislation aimed at maximizing the value of assets and ensuring equitable distribution among stakeholders. Procedural timelines, though significant, are meant to promote expedient resolution and liquidation—not to defeat substantive claims on hyper-technical grounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17 emphasized the need to balance procedural compliance with equitable justice, and such balancing must guide this adjudication as well.

• In the absence of express exclusion, the Limitation Act applies to proceedings before this Authority. In Surendra Trading Company v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 143, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that statutory timelines under the Code are directory and not mandatory.

• The bar on condonation of delay under Section 61(2) of the IBC, as elucidated in National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Anil Kohli AIR 2021 SC 4339, does not apply here. Section 42 of the Code contains no outer limit for preferring an Appeal nor any bar on the applicability of the Limitation Act. Therefore, this Tribunal retains jurisdiction to condone the delay upon sufficient cause being shown.

•  It is relevant to observe that in provisions where the legislature intended to prescribe a strict bar (e.g. Section 61(2) IBC, Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Section 125 of the Electricity Act), the legislative intent was expressly stated. In contrast, no such embargo exists in Section 42 of the IBC or Regulation 21A of Liquidation Regulations. Hence, condonation of delay is permissible when justified on facts.

• Equitable principles warrant invocation in this case. Rejecting the Applicant’s claim purely on procedural grounds, despite its partial security and considerable exposure, may result in disproportionate prejudice and disrupt the equitable distribution of the liquidation estate. A purposive construction of the Code militates against such exclusion.

Excerpts of the Order;

# 1. This is an application filed under Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), challenging the rejection of the Applicant’s revised claim by the Liquidator of M/s. IVRCL Limited (CD) vide communication dated 28.11.2019.

# 2. Application:

2.1 The Applicant had extended financial assistance to the CD in 2008 by subscribing to Secured, Redeemable, Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) worth Rs.200 crores.

2.2 The CD was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 23.02.2018, and an Order of Liquidation was passed on 26.07.2019.

2.3 Upon the Liquidator’s Public Announcement dated 31.07.2019, the Applicant submitted its claim in Form-D on 21.08.2019. However, the said Form did not contain details on the status of relinquishment of security interest as required by Column 8A of Form-D, inserted via IBBI Notification dated 25.07.2019.

2.4 The Liquidator pointed out this omission vide email dated 18.09.2019. The Applicant responded promptly on 19.09.2019, stating that it had not relinquished its security interest. Subsequently, at the instance of the Liquidator, the Applicant submitted a revised Form-D on 05.11.2019, clarifying partial relinquishment.  

2.5 The Liquidator, while acknowledging receipt of the revised claim, declined to admit it unless delay in submission was condoned by the NCLT. Consequently, the present Application was filed under Section 42.

# 3. Counter of the Respondent:

3.1 The Respondent relies on Regulation 21A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (Liquidation Regulations), to submit that the Applicant was required to intimate its decision on relinquishment of security interest within 30 days from the liquidation commencement date, failing which the asset is deemed to be part of the liquidation estate.

3.2 The Respondent contends that the Form-D did not disclose the status of relinquishment, and repeated communications and meetings reflected the Applicant's delay and omission in this regard.

# 4. We have heard the Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant and Learned Counsel for the Respondent, perused the written submissions and have gone through the entire records.

# 5. Findings:

5.1 The present application was filed on 01.12.2020, i.e., 368 days after the rejection of the revised Form-D by the Liquidator on 28.11.2019. Though the application was initially allowed by this Authority on 02.02.2022, the said Order was subsequently set aside by the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) vide Order dated 29.07.2024, with a direction to consider the matter afresh.  

5.2 It is not in dispute that Column 8A in Form-D, which requires disclosure regarding relinquishment of security interest, was introduced by the IBBI Notification dated 25.07.2019—prior to the Liquidator’s public announcement dated 31.07.2019. Accordingly, the Applicant was duty-bound to furnish the relevant disclosure in terms of the amended Form-D and Regulation 8A, which reads as under:

• [8A WHETHER SECURITY INTEREST RELINQUISHED Yes/No]

5.3 Liquidation Regulations mandates that a Secured Creditor must intimate its decision on relinquishment of security interest within 30 days of the liquidation commencement date. A failure to do so results in the secured asset forming part of the liquidation estate by operation of Law.

5.4 Admittedly, the initial claim submitted by the Applicant did not comply with the amended Form-D and lacked the necessary disclosure under Column 8A. However, the Liquidator, instead of rejecting the claim outright, provided the Applicant an opportunity to clarify the position via email dated 18.09.2019. The Applicant responded promptly on 19.09.2019 and thereafter submitted a revised Form-D on 05.11.2019. The record also reflects that the Liquidator addressed an email on 24.09.2019 (forming part of the Applicant record), requesting resubmission of Form-D with appropriate disclosure regarding relinquishment.

5.5 Thereafter, the Liquidator asked the Applicant to obtain condonation of delay from this Authority. The Liquidator’s continuous engagement with the revised claim and the instruction to seek condonation contributed significantly to the delay in approaching this Authority.

5.6 The total delay, therefore, consists of (i) 71 days in submission of the revised Form-D; and (ii) 368 days in filing the present Application after rejection of the claim by the Liquidator.

5.7 Both periods must be assessed in the context of the Liquidator’s interactions with the Applicant and the developing legal framework concerning procedural timelines.

5.8 It is a well-settled principle that even in the absence of a formal application for condonation of delay, such delay can be condoned where sufficient cause is evident on record. In Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Cooperative Bank Ltd. (2021)7 SCC 313, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that proceedings under the IBC are subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, including Section 5, unless expressly excluded. Therefore, the absence of an express prayer for condonation is not fatal in the present case.

5.9 The IBC is a beneficial legislation aimed at maximizing the value of assets and ensuring equitable distribution among stakeholders. Procedural timelines, though significant, are meant to promote expedient resolution and liquidation—not to defeat substantive claims on hyper-technical grounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17 emphasized the need to balance procedural compliance with equitable justice, and such balancing must guide this adjudication as well.

5.10 The IBC and its allied regulations must be interpreted purposively. In the absence of express exclusion, the Limitation Act applies to proceedings before this Authority. In Surendra Trading Company v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 143, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that statutory timelines under the Code are directory and not mandatory. Further, in Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. (2021) 10 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized that a litigant is entitled to benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act if it had been bona fide pursuing a remedy in a wrong forum with due diligence. These principles apply with equal force to the Applicant’s conduct in the present case.

5.11 The bar on condonation of delay under Section 61(2) of the IBC, as elucidated in National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Anil Kohli AIR 2021 SC 4339, does not apply here. Section 42 of the Code contains no outer limit for preferring an Appeal nor any bar on the applicability of the Limitation Act. Therefore, this Tribunal retains jurisdiction to condone the delay upon sufficient cause being shown.

5.12 It is relevant to observe that in provisions where the legislature intended to prescribe a strict bar (e.g. Section 61(2) IBC, Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Section 125 of the Electricity Act), the legislative intent was expressly stated. In contrast, no such embargo exists in Section 42 of the IBC or Regulation 21A of Liquidation Regulations. Hence, condonation of delay is permissible when justified on facts. 

5.13 In the present case, the delay in submission of the revised Form-D and in filing the Appeal was neither deliberate nor mala fide. The Applicant responded expeditiously to the Liquidator’s communications and acted in good faith. The Liquidator’s act of requiring resubmission and interacting with the revised claim without immediately raising the issue of limitation contributed to the delay. These circumstances justify invoking equitable principles to condone the delay.

5.14 Equitable principles warrant invocation in this case. Rejecting the Applicant’s claim purely on procedural grounds, despite its partial security and considerable exposure, may result in disproportionate prejudice and disrupt the equitable distribution of the liquidation estate. A purposive construction of the Code militates against such exclusion.

# 6. Final Order:

In view of the detailed findings above and considering the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience as embodied in the IBC and the applicable judicial precedents:

• I. The delay of 71 days in submission of the revised Form-D by the Applicant and the delay of 368 days in filing the present Application under Section 42 of the IBC are hereby condoned.

• Ii. The rejection of the Applicant’s revised claim by the Liquidator on the ground of delay is set aside.

• Iii. The Liquidator is directed to consider the Applicant’s revised claim dated 05.11.2019 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

• Iv. It is clarified that this Order does not amount to an adjudication on the validity or admissibility of the claim itself, which shall be considered afresh by the Liquidator independently, without being influenced by the earlier rejection.

# 7. Accordingly, the application stands allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. 

--------------------------------------------------------- 

Central Board of Trustees, EPF Vs. Mr. Bhavesh Rathod, Liquidator. - Admittedly, the order creating the demand against the Corporate Debtor was passed after the commencement of liquidation, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim of applicant can not be admitted in the liquidation proceedings.

 NCLT Mumbai-1 (2024.07.19) in Central Board of Trustees, EPF Vs. Mr. Bhavesh Rathod, Liquidator. [C.A. 15 of 2024 IN C.P. (IB)4488/MB/2018] held that; 

• Admittedly, the order creating the demand against the Corporate Debtor was passed after the commencement of liquidation, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim of applicant can not be admitted in the liquidation proceedings. 

Excerpts of the order;

# 1. The present Company Appeal 15 of 2024 is filed in Company Petition CP No. 4488 of 2018 by the Central Board of Trustees, Employees’ Provident Fund through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (Legal) in terms of Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the matter of Ashapura Intimates Fashion Limited seeking following relief; 

• a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of 40 days in filing the present Company Appeal by the Appellant. 

• b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of 670 days in filing the Claim by the Appellant and be pleased to pass an order and direct the Liquidator to admit the claim and pay the amount of Rs. 417102/- towards the provident fund dues under section 7Q and 14B of EPF & MP Act, 1952. 

• c) Any other order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case. 

# 2. The Corporate Debtor is covered under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The corporate debtor had defaulted in remittance of statutory Provident Fund and allied dues under section 7Q and 14 B to the tune of Rs. 417102/-. The Hon'ble NCLT passed the order of liquidation in respect of the Corporate Debtor on 05.10.2020. The Appellant got notification regarding the Insolvency Resolution Process on 18.07.2022. The Appellant vide letter dated 02.02.2024 submitted its claim before the Liquidator. The Liquidator vide email dated 09.02.2024 replied to the Appellant that the last day to file the claim was 04.11.2020 and requested to make an Appeal for condonation of delay before Hon’ble NCLT. The Appellant, being an organization under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, has to go through various approvals and sanctions from the Higher authorities to file a claim in respect of the Corporate debtor which caused a delay of 670 days in filing a claim against the Corporate debtor. 

# 3. Heard the Counsel and perused the material on record. 

# 4. In the present case, the Liquidation commenced on 5.10.2020 and the order in terms of section 7Q and 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 were passed on 29.12.2023 demanding a sum of Rs. 417102/-. The claim before the Liquidator was filed on 02.02.2024, while the last date for submission of claim in the liquidation process was 4.11.2020. The Liquidator rejected the claim vide email dated 09.02.2024. The appeal has been filed on 08.05.2024. Section 42 of the IB Code require the claimant to file an appeal against the rejection of claim within 14 days. The Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of Canara Bank vs. Commercial Tax Department Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (2023) ibclaw.in 342 NCLAT has held that 

• “The delay in filing the Appeal under Section 42 is clearly condonable while exercising the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.” Accordingly, to meet the end of justice, we consider it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 

# 5. Undisputedly the Orders u/s 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act were passed on 29.12.2023 i.e. after the commencement of liquidation in case of corporate debtor on 4.11.2020. Section 33(5) of the IB Code provides that “Subject to section 52, when a liquidation order has been passed, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted by or against the corporate debtor.” In terms of section 38 of the Code, the Liquidator is collect the claims of creditors within 30 days of the liquidation commencement date which is 4.11.2020 in this case. The Hon’ble NCLAT in case of DBS Bank India Ltd. Vs. Kuldeep Verma, Liquidator of Eastern Gases Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 103 NCLAT held that 

• “When a statute provides for liquidation commencement date as a date up to which claims can be filed and proved, no claim thereafter can be entertained by the Liquidator.” 

Admittedly, the order creating the demand against the Corporate Debtor was passed after the commencement of liquidation, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim of applicant can not be admitted in the liquidation proceedings. 

# 6. In view of the above, Appeal 15/2024 is dismissed. 

---------------------------------------------

Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Joka Division Vs M/s. Environ Energy Corporation India Private Limited, - We find no merit in the application made by the GST department on both counts (i.e.) extraordinary delay in submitting the claim before the liquidator which is 664 days from the date the claim ought to have been filed and delay in filing this appeal before the Adjudicating Authority which is nearly four months beyond the statutory time limit, prescribed under Section 42 of IBC.

 NCLT Kolkata (31.05.2005) in Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Joka Division, Kolkata South Commissionerate Vs M/s. Environ Energy Corporation India Private Limited, [I.A. (IB) No. 1472/KB/ 2023 In CP (IB) No. 1106/KB/2019] held that;

• We find no merit in the application made by the GST department on both counts (i.e.) extraordinary delay in submitting the claim before the liquidator which is 664 days from the date the claim ought to have been filed and delay in filing this appeal before the Adjudicating Authority which is nearly four months beyond the statutory time limit, prescribed under Section 42 of IBC.

Excerpts of the order;

# 3. This application has been preferred under Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST on Central Excise, Joka Division, Kolkata South Commissionerate, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Applicant / GST Department’) against M/s. Envaron Energy Corporation India Private Limited (in Liquidation) represented by its Official Liquidator Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal (hereinafterreferred to as Corporate Debtor/Respondent).

# 4. Under Section 42 of the IBC, the Applicant has sought the following relief:

a) To direct the Official Liquidator to accept and consider the claim of the applicant;

b) Delay in preferring the instant applicant (if any), be condoned by this Tribunal for the interest of justice;

c) Delay of 664 days to prefer the claim before the Official Liquidator be condoned by this Tribunal for the interest of justice;

d) Accept the claim of the Applicant as mentioned in the Order-in-Originals stated in paragraph no. 2 hereinabove;

e) Such other and further order may be deemed fit and proper.

# 5. Factual Matrix:

5.1. The GST department had issued show cause notice and consequent orders in original Demanding Service Tax on the Corporate Debtor through 3 separate orders annexed as Annexures A1, A2 and A3 to the application.

5.2. The order in original dated 10.03.2017, annexed as Annexure A1 demanded a sum of Rs.5,11,56,977/- along with interest and penalty of Rs.5,11,56,977/-.

5.3. The Order in original dated 31.05.2018 issued by the GST Department, annexed as Annexure A2, demanded a sum of Rs.94,66,590/- along with interest and penalty of Rs.9,46,659/-.

5.4. The Order in original dated 03.05.2019 which is annexed as Annexure A3 has demanded a sum of Rs.1,42,49,024/- along with interest and penalty of Rs.14,24,902/-, apart from late fee of Rs.59,100/-. All these orders were served on the Corporate Debtor , claims the Applicant.

5.5. Subsequently, a show cause notice was served on the Corporate Debtor dated 28.06.2019 which is annexed as Annexure A4 demanding Rs.12,22,36,041/- along with interest, apart from proposing to levy a penalty of Rs. 22,22,36,041/-

5.6. In response to the said show cause notice, the Corporate Debtor through its Liquidator had replied by submitting the order of NCLT, Kolkata Bench 19th May of 2021 informing about the liquidation order passed and the same was attached as the response to the show cause notice dated 28.06.2019. 

5.7. The GST department claims that this response to the show cause notice was received only on 16.03.2023 and consequently, they lodged their claim in the prescribed Form B of IBBI (Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016) on 13.04.2023.

5.8. On 24.04.2023, the Applicant GST Department , received an e-mail from the liquidator of the Corporate Debtor informing that the Liquidation Process of the respondent company commenced on 19.05.2021 and the last date for filing the claim as per the public announcement made is 18th June 2021. The Official Liquidator, therefore, declined to admit the claim made by the Applicant on 13th April 2023, which is after a delay of 664 days. Consequent, to this e-mail received from the Liquidator on 24.04.2023 this application has been filed by the GST, Department on 30.08.2023 seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

# 6. Applicant’s Submission: -

6.1. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that they became aware of the liquidation of the company only on 16.03.2023 and immediately on becoming aware they filed the claim with the liquidator on 13.04.2023 in Form B as prescribed under the (IBBI), Liquidation Process Regulations, which is well within 30 days from the date of coming to the

know of the Liquidation. 

6.2. It is submitted that they were never informed about the commencement of Liquidation by the Corporate Debtor; therefore, this has resulted in a delay of 664 days to prefer the claim before the Liquidator

6.3. Considering that the revenue of more than 60 crores of rupees due to the National Exchequer is involved in this case, the delay in preferring this claim may be condoned under the above facts and circumstances and the Liquidator may be directed to admit the claim in the interest of revenue/nation.

# 7. Respondent’s Submission per contra: -

7.1. Learned Counsel for the Liquidator claims that the advertisement for inviting claim as per IBBI Liquidation Process Regulation, 2016 was made in Form B of Schedule II within 5 days from the date of order of liquidation by NCLT on 19.05.2021. The public announcement was made in two large English papers as well as in the vernacular newspapers. The public announcement called upon all the stakeholders to submit their claims within 30 days from the date of advertisement.

7.2. As per Regulation 17 of the IBBI (Liquidation process) Regulation an Operational Creditor like GST Department will have to submit proof of the claim to the liquidator in the prescribed form with relevant documents to prove their claim.

7.3. The Regulation also provides that in case the OperationalCreditor has submitted its claim during the CIR process the same shall be deemed to submitted under Section 38 of IBC which is the section that governs the submission of claims before the liquidator. Having not done so the Operational Creditor/GST department has lost the opportunity to submit their claim at this stage when liquidation is at the far end of the process.

# 8. Analysis and Findings:

8.1. As per the pleading and records placed in the application, we find that the Orders passed by the GST department are with reference to the demands made under the erstwhile service tax regime.

8.2. As per Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 (which govern the Levy and Collection of Service Tax) for Recovery of any amount due to the Central Government there is a recovery mechanism which includes attachment of the Bank Accounts/ moveable and immoveable properties etc. and the same can be done and such attached properties can be sold and dues to the Government could be recovered.

8.3. In the given case nothing has been placed on record by the GST department that such recovery proceedings have been initiated for the recovery of such huge sums to the exchequer. In the absence of any such action placed on record, we will have to infer that no such action has been taken by the GST department. Having failed to do so they should have at least submitted their claim before the Resolution Professional during CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. Nothing has been placed on record to suggest that the GST department has submitted their claims during the CIR process with the Resolution Professional.

8.4. Thus, they failed to take any action even during the CIR process. GST Department cannot claim ignorance of the commencement of CIRP of its own assessee, from whom large sums are due when such proceedings are made public at large by way of public announcement in newspapers apart from the announcement in the Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India, website.

8.5. The regulations made under IBBI do not provide for individual communication to creditors about the CIRP process or Liquidation Process as the same would delay the entire time-bound CIRP/Liquidation process. That is why we are of the view that the law has prescribed for public announcements in large newspapers.

8.6. Therefore, the claim of the department that they were not aware of the CIRP proceedings/liquidation proceedings cannot be accepted particularly when the department interacts with the assessee on a monthly basis through several Returns.

8.7. In this case, they claim that they became aware when they received the response of the Corporate Debtor against the show cause notice dated 28.06.2019. The show cause notice dated 28.06.2019 would have been served within 10 days from the date of notice. Assuming that this was served during 1st week of July 2019, the response from the Corporate Debtor would have been received within 30 days from the receipt of show cause notice, as show cause notice mandates reply from the Corporate Debtor within 30 days from the receipt of show cause notice. If no such reply was received, GST Department can pass an ex-parte order after granting a hearing. Nothing of that sort has been done as per the records placed.

8.8. It is not the claim of the department that the Applicant received the notice dated 28.06.2019 only in 2023, and consequently they received the response from the Applicant only 16.03.2023. We see only delays and latches writ large on the part of the GST department.

8.9. The rejection letter from the liquidator through email was received on 24.04.2023, whereas this appeal has been preferred before NCLT on 30.08.2023. As per Section 42 of the IBC, the stakeholders will have to file an appeal to the Adjudicating Authority against the decision of the Liquidator within 14 days of the receipt of such decision. In this case, they claim to have received the rejection on 24.04.2023. In that case statutory time limit for preferring appeal before this Adjudicating Authority ends on 8th May 2023.

8.10. Even in preferring an appeal they have taken nearly another four months beyond the statutory limit prescribed in IBC and filed it only on 30.08.2023. This clearly demonstrates the lackadaisical approach of the GST department in pursuing such large demands from the Corporate Debtor.

8.11. In view of the above, we find no merit in the application made by the GST department on both counts (i.e.) extraordinary delay in submitting the claim before the liquidator which is 664 days from the date the claim ought to have been filed and delay in filing this appeal before the Adjudicating Authority which is nearly four months beyond the statutory time limit, prescribed under Section 42 of IBC.

8.12. The Legal Positions:

a. In The Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Audit), Raichur -Vs-Surana Industries Ltd. (In Liquidation) & Anr. in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1525 of 2019 dated 07.02.2020, wherein the Hon'ble NCLAT has dismissed the application filed by the Applicant in relation to the Appeal against the order of the Liquidator and also held that liquidation process is a time bound process, and the Liquidator has to conclude his proceedings within one year. (Emphasis supplied)

b. Further, we are fortified by the decision of a Coordinate Bench. NCLT, Chennai Bench in the matter of Employees State Insurance Corporation vs. Chinnam Poorna Chandra Rao reported in [2020] ibclaw.in 180 NCLAT where it was held that the extraordinary delay […] in submission of claim by applicant, is devoid of merits. Further in interest of Justice also we could not condone the delay as sought for. If such extraordinary delay is condoned, it shall defeat the very purpose of the IBC, 2016. (Emphasis supplied)

# 9. In the view foregoing, we dismiss this application being I.A. (IB) No.1472/KB/2023 in Company Petition (IB) No. 1106/KB/2019 accordingly.

# 10. No cost upon the applicant herein.

\

# 11. Certified copies of the order, if applied for with the Registry of this Adjudicating Authority, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

-------------------------------------------------------