2023 (3) TMI 449 - AT - Insolvency & Bankruptcy

Condonation of delay of 5 days in physical filing of Hard Copies of the Appeal Type Set of papers - wilful or wanton delay or not - plea of the Petitioner / Appellant is that, there is no proof that the Order, was pronounced / dictated Online on 11.10.2022, when the Appellant, was present and when the Order, is not Pronounced, then the date of receipt of Order alone, can be used to calculate, the Limitation.

HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, a Remedy, under the Limitation Rules, can be exercised only upto a particular point of time and not later, as the case may be. Indeed, the Stakeholders / Litigants / Entities, are to be quite diligent and they cannot remain negligent, and resort to a callous attitude, especially, in the spirit of the I & B Code, 2016, that Speed is its Gist.

In so far as the Plea of the Petitioner / Appellant, is that the Impugned Order, was not Pronounced by the Adjudicating Authority (Tribunal) on 11.10.2022, and the same was not available for a long period and further that it was uploaded by the NCLT (Tribunal) on 21.11.2022, this Tribunal, pertinently points out the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi & Anr. [2003 (7) TMI 708 - SUPREME COURT], wherein, it is observed that This Court cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public policy and judicial decorum do not permit it. Matters of judicial record in that sense are unquestionable However, the Court can pass appropriate orders if a party moves it contending that the order has not correctly reflected happenings in Court.

It cannot be gainsaid that in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the Law, declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all Subordinate Courts, Tribunals, Appellate Tribunal, etc., as opined by this Tribunal.

In the instant case, the Order, dismissing Ivn.P/7(CHE)/2022 in IA/248(CHE)/2022 in IBA/471/2020, was Pronounced by the Adjudicating Authority (Tribunal) on 11.10.2022 in Open Court itself, at once, and hence, the Petitioner / Appellant, cannot have any grievance, because in the presence of its Authorised Representative, the impugned order, was passed and as such, there is sufficient compliance of Rule 150 (1) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal, Moreover, the Petitioner / Appellant’s Authorised Representative and the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, had knowledge of the Order on 11.10.2022 itself, and hence, the time for computing the Limitation, had commenced from 11.10.2022, and there is no acceptable / sufficient justiciable reason on behalf of the Petitioner / Appellant, in remaining inactive from 11.10.2022 to 24.11.2022.

In the instant case, the Petitioner / Appellant, from the date of Pronouncement of Order of Dismissing the Ivn.P/7(CHE)/2022 in IA/248(CHE)/2022 in IBA/471/2020, on 11.10.2022 (in Open Court), by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 41 of 2023, ought to have been filed within 30 days, from the date of the Order, i.e. on 10.11.2022, as per Section 61(2) of the I & B Code, 2016 - In the present case, the 45 days period lapsed on 25.11.2022. The E-filing of the Appeal Papers were made on the side of the Petitioner / Appellant, on 23.12.2022. After 45 days (30 + 15), there is a Delay of 28 days. In fact, the Certified Copy of the Impugned Order was issued to the Petitioner / Appellant, on 24.11.2022.

Thus, it is candidly clear that the Petitioner / Appellant, had E-filed the Appeal Papers on 23.12.2022, i.e. on 73rd day, and the physical filing, was made, on 28.12.2022. By taking into account of the fact that 30 days Limitation Period, ends on 10.11.2022 (from the date of Impugned Order, i.e., on 11.10.2022) and the 45 days period, comes to an end, on 25.11.2022, and keeping in mind of another fact that the E-filing of the Appeal Papers, were done on behalf of the Petitioner / Appellant, on 23.12.2022, and after deducting (30 + 15 = 45 days - the Outer Limit Period), still there is a Delay of 28 days, and there is no power, enjoined upon Appellate Tribunal, to condone the Delay, beyond the permissible / prescribed period, as per Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016.

Application dismissed.