- within Energy and Natural Resources topic(s)
- in United States
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within Energy and Natural Resources, Criminal Law, Media, Telecoms, IT and Entertainment topic(s)
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (“APTEL”), vide Order dated 05.05.20261 in the matter of Global Energy Private Limited v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, dismissed the applications filed by Global Energy Private Limited (“GEPL”) seeking condonation of delay and restoration of the appeal, which had earlier been dismissed for non-prosecution. It was held that the Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”) and monitoring committee of GEPL has failed to demonstrate “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay of 421 days in filing the restoration application.
The issue before APTEL was whether the delay caused in filing the restoration application after completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. GEPL contended that repeated changes in Interim Resolution Professionals (“IRPs”) and delay in handover of documents by the Resolution Professional (“RP”), subsisting moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), and ill health of the SRA constituted sufficient cause for the delay.
APTEL held that although the period till approval of the resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) should normally be condoned, the delay thereafter remained wholly unexplained. APTEL observed that the SRA failed to exercise due diligence by not approaching the NCLT against the alleged noncooperation of the RP and by not undertaking timely efforts to ascertain pending litigations involving the corporate debtor, i.e., GEPL. Further, APTEL rejected the plea of ill health of the SRA in absence of supporting medical records and held that liberal principles governing condonation of delay cannot be applied mechanically in cases lacking bona fides and diligence. Accordingly, APTEL dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently refused restoration of the appeal.
Footnote
1. IA Nos. 1759 & 1760 of 2025 in Appeal No. 88 of 2017.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
