TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nerringly exhibits that the said Section is conspicuously silent about the words, a copy of the order is made available to the person aggrieved, etc. Considering the fact that the instant appeal was filed by the Appellant before this Tribunal on 09.09.2022 and this Tribunal bearing in mind that the outer limit of 45 Days (30 + 15) came to an end on 05.09.2022 and admittedly, as such, the instant appeal is clearly barred by time. Appeal dismissed being not maintainable. - Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.370/2022 & IA No.869/2022 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2022 - [Justice M. Venugopal] Member (Judicial) And [Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. A.R. Karunakaran, Advocate ORDER (VIRTUAL MODE) Heard Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h-II). In the instant case, on hand , the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal on 09.09.2022 before this Appellate Tribunal . The Impugned Order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-II) in IA No.295/2020 in CP(IB)No.510/9/HDB/2019 on 21.07.2022, the 45 Days period has ended on 05.09.2022. 5. The contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that the Certified Copy of the Impugned Order dated 21.07.2022 in IA No.295/2020 in CP(IB)No.510/9/HDB/2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-II) was not despatched to the Appellant / Petitioner (Operational Creditor) and that the Learned Counsel for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Power Ltd. Ors., wherein at Paragraph 21 , it is observed as under: - The answer to the two issues set out in Section C of the judgement- (i) when will the clock for calculating the limitation period run for proceedings under the IBC; and (ii) is the annexation of a certified copy mandatory for an appeal to the NCLAT against an order passed under the IBC must be based on a harmonious interpretation of the applicable legal regime, given that the IBC is a Code in itself and has overriding effect. Sections 61(1) and (2) of the IBC consciously omit the requirement of limitation being computed from when the order is made available to the aggrieved party , in contradistinction to Section 421(3) of the Companies Act. Owing to the spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period of limitation shall not stop running after passing of the order/judgment. Our jurisdiction to condone the delay is only limited to 15 days under Section 61(2) proviso. There being delay of more than 15 days, the Delay Condonation Application cannot be allowed. Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Memo of Appeal is rejected. 11. Considering the fact that the instant Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.370/2022 was filed by the Appellant before this Tribunal on 09.09.2022 and this Tribunal bearing in mind that the outer limit of 45 Days (30 + 15) came to an end on 05.09.2022 and admittedly, as such, the instant Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.370/2022 is clearly barred by time . 12. Furthermore, in the teeth of the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
