A person who sleeps over their rights should not be given the indulgence of Condonation of Delay

A person who sleeps over their rights should not be given the indulgence of Condonation of Delay

The phrase “sleeps over their rights” implies negligence or apathy towards one’s legal entitlements. Condonation of delay, in legal terms, refers to the act of excusing or pardoning a delay in filing a legal action or in complying with a legal requirement. It’s often granted under certain circumstances, such as genuine reasons for the delay or if no prejudice is caused to the other party.

Your statement suggests a stance that those who are negligent in asserting their rights should not be granted leniency in terms of allowing delays. This perspective aligns with the idea that rights come with responsibilities, including the responsibility to assert and protect them in a timely manner. By not doing so, one might forfeit the right to seek redress or relief later on. It emphasizes the importance of diligence and timely action in legal matters.

It’s a legal principle found in many jurisdictions emphasizing that there are time limits for pursuing legal claims. Here’s a breakdown:

• Sleeping over one’s rights: This means someone doesn’t take action to defend their rights or enforce them within a reasonable timeframe.
• Condonation of Delay: This is a court’s discretionary power to excuse a delay in filing a legal claim. It’s not an automatic right.

The idea is that the legal system shouldn’t reward someone who waits too long to act. There are reasons for time limits, like preserving evidence and fairness to the other party. Courts may consider reasons for the delay, but generally won’t be forgiving of excessive sluggishness.

This principle is often expressed in Latin as “vigilantibus juris subveniunt,” which means “the law helps the vigilant, not those who sleep.”

This statement reflects the principle that individuals who do not take timely action to enforce their rights may lose the opportunity to do so. The concept of “condonation of delay” refers to the discretion exercised by a court to extend the time period for filing an appeal or taking some other legal action, even if the delay was caused by the negligence or inaction of the person seeking relief.

The idea behind the statement is that people have a responsibility to be vigilant about their rights and take prompt action to protect them. If a person is not proactive in asserting their rights, it can be argued that they have waived or abandoned their rights and should not be allowed to claim them at a later stage.

This principle is often applied in legal systems to ensure that disputes are resolved in a timely and efficient manner, and to discourage frivolous or speculative litigation. However, it is important to note that courts may consider a variety of factors in deciding whether to condone delay, including the reasons for the delay, the nature of the rights at issue, and the potential prejudice to other parties.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi recently held that a belated claim by a creditor cannot be entertained by the Resolution Professional (RP) as the insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (IBC) are time bound. [Pooja Mehra v. Nilesh Sharma & Ors.] A coram of Chairperson Ashok Bhushan and technical member Arun Baroka observed in an April 19 order that a person who sleeps over their rights should not be given the indulgence of condonation of delay. “The appellant was sleeping over his rights. A person who sleeps over his rights ought not be given any indulgence. Close to 3 years had passed since the commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) of Dream Procon Pvt Ltd and the applicant never showed any interest with respect to the flat purchased by him. The proceedings under IBC are time bound and the belated claim of the applicant cannot be considered and is liable to be rejected,” the NCLAT held.

Here are some key takeaways from the Pooja Mehra v. Nilesh Sharma & Ors. case:

• Time-bound nature of IBC proceedings: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) emphasizes that the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (IBC) process has strict timelines. This ensures a faster resolution for insolvent companies and protects all stakeholders involved.
• Creditor’s responsibility: Creditors have a duty to be vigilant and submit their claims within the stipulated timeframe (usually 90 days from the commencement of CIRP).
• Consequences of delay: As seen in this case, a creditor who “sleeps over their rights” by not submitting a claim on time risks its rejection, even if they have a legitimate claim.

This case highlights the importance of creditors being proactive and following the established procedures during CIRP to protect their interests.

It seems like the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has taken a firm stance on the importance of adhering to timelines in insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). In the case of Pooja Mehra v. Nilesh Sharma & Ors., the NCLAT upheld the decision of the Resolution Professional (RP) to reject a belated claim by a creditor, emphasizing that the proceedings under IBC are time-bound and belated claims cannot be considered.

This decision sends a clear message that stakeholders involved in insolvency proceedings must be diligent in asserting their claims within the prescribed timelines. Failure to do so may result in the loss of their rights, as in the case of Pooja Mehra, who lost her ₹50 lakh claim because she missed the deadline.

The NCLAT’s decision underscores the need for strict adherence to the IBC framework to ensure the timely and efficient resolution of insolvency cases. It serves as a reminder to all parties involved in such proceedings to be proactive and vigilant in protecting their rights and interests.