9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arte passed. The order dated 13.01.2023 was passed against Mansfield Cables Company & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which is not the Corporate Debtor in which the Appellant is Suspended Director. It is submitted that the order dated 13.01.2023 initiating the CIRP under Section 9 was against Mansfield Cables Company & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. which is not the Corporate Debtor. The Operational Creditor moved application being I.A. No.244 of 2023 in Company Petition (IB) No. 79 (ND) 2021, on which the Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 17.03.2023 and observed that although serious mistake has committed on behalf of the applicant, however, Court is not inclined to take any further action and accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the IRP of the applicant company. The Adjudicating Authority on 17.01.2023 changed the name of Corporate Debtor from "Mansfield Cables Company & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd." to "Mansfield Power & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd." i.e. Corporate Debtor of which the Appellant is suspended Director. It is submitted that the Appellant received the information of the order dated 13.01.2023 by letter dated 18.01.2023 received on 07.02.2023 and appeal has been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unced. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited & Ors." in Paras 31 to 33 laid down following: "31. The import of Section 12 of the Limitation Act and its Explanation is to assign the responsibility of applying for a certified copy of the order on a party. A person wishing to file an appeal is expected to file an application for a certified copy before the expiry of the limitation period, upon which the "time requisite" for obtaining a copy is to be excluded. However, the time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy is made cannot be excluded. If no application for a certified copy has been made, no exclusion can ensue. In fact, the explanation to the provision is a clear indicator of the legal position that the time which is taken by the court to prepare the decree or order cannot be excluded before the application to obtain a copy is made. It cannot be said that the right to receive a free copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies Act obviated the obligation on the appellant to seek a certified copy through an application. The appellant has urged that Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules empowers the NCLAT to exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obligation on the appellant to apply for a certified copy once the order was pronounced by the NCLT on 31 December 2019, by virtue of Section 61(2) of the IBC read with Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules. In the event the appellant was correct in his assertion that a correct copy of the order was not available until 20 March 2020, the appellant would not have received a certified copy in spite of the application till such date and accordingly received the benefit of the suo motu order of this Court which came into effect on 15 March 2020. However, in the absence of an application for a certified copy, the appeal was barred by limitation much prior to the suo motu direction of this court, even after factoring in a permissible fifteen days of condonation under Section 61(2). The Court is not empowered to condone delays beyond statutory prescriptions in special statutes containing a provision for limitation. 33. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Applicant has admitted that it has filed wrong amended Memo of Parties on 13.01.2023 and in para 12 of the application, it has submitted unconditional apology for the same. During the arguments, the Applicant reiterated its unconditional apology for submitting the wrong Memo of Parties in the main matter. Though it is a serious mistake on the part of the Applicant, we are not inclined to take any further action in the matter in view of the unconditional apology tendered by the IRP of the Applicant Company present personally. In view of the averments made in the application and submissions made by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the IRP of the Applicant Company and IRP appearing in person, we hereby order that: "The name of the corporate debtor in the order dated 13.01.2023 be read as "MANSFIELD POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED" in place of "MANSFIELD CABLES COMPANY & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED". The amended order is appended herewith. IRP of the Corporate Debtor Mr. Vikram Bajaj having IBBI Registration No. IBBL/IPA-002/IP NO003/2016- 2017/10003 (Mob. No. 9999989408) (Email ID: [email protected]) is directed to take all necessary steps for the furthera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
