9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;Condonation of Delay' in filing this Appeal. This Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 05th May, 2022 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in I.A. (IB) No. 101/CB/2021 and M.A. (IB) No. 08/CB/2021 in T.P. No. 112/CTB/2019 (CP No. 300/KB/2017). 2. This Appeal has been filed in this Tribunal on 04th July, 2022. In Delay Condonation Application, following is pleaded: "2. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 05.05.2022 has not been uploaded till date on the website of the National Company Law Tribunal https://nclt.gov.in/. In fact, a copy of the order dated 05.05.2022 has been supplied to the official liquidator through post and the same has been sent to the Applicant herein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and have perused the record. 6. In so far as the submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Tribunal was closed from 06.06.2022 and it reopened on 04th July, 2022 hence the Appeal is within time filed on the reopening day, suffice it to say that by notification dated 01st June, 2022 issued by this Tribunal for summer vacation, filing of the Appeal was permitted through both e-filing and physical filing, hence the Tribunal was not closed for filing to give any benefit of summer vacation to the Appellant for computation of limitation. 7. The next question to be answered is as to whether the computation of limitation for filing the Appeal has to be from the date of knowledge of the Appellant as claimed or limitation begins from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he absence of the words "from the date on which a copy of the order of the Tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved" in the latter. The absence of these words cannot be construed as a mere omission which can be supplemented with a right to a free copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies Act read with Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules for the purposes of reckoning limitation. This would ignore the context of the IBC's provisions and the purpose of the legislation. ................... 28. In this background, when timelines are placed even on legal proceedings, reading in the requirement of an "order being made available" under a general enactment (Companies Act) would do violence to the special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation. However it is important to note that this Court had only extended the period of limitation applicable in the proceedings, only in cases where such period had not ended before 15 March 2020. In this case, owing to the specific language of Section 61(1) and 61(2), it is evident that limitation commenced once the order was pronounced and the time taken by the Court to provide the appellant with a certified copy would have been excluded, as clarified in Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, if the appellant had applied for a certified copy within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 61(2) of the IBC. The construction of the law does not import the absurdity the appellant alleges of an impossible act of filing an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect. 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 special nature of the IBC, the aggrieved party is expected to exercise due diligence and apply for a certified copy upon pronouncement of the order it seeks to assail, in consonance with the requirements of Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules. Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act allows for an exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree or order appealed against. It is not open to a person aggrieved by an order under the IBC to await the receipt of a free certified copy under Section 420(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly laid down that Appeal against the Order of NCLT should have been preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of order passed by the NCLT. Following observations has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "Learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated that period of limitation would start from the date of knowledge. Though, the claim was filed by Respondent No. 1 before the Resolution Professional, it was not a party before the NCLT which passed the order approving the resolution plan. According to the learned counsel for 1st Respondent, he came to know about the order passed by the NCLT much later. Support was sought from a judgment of this Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Dy. Land Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
