TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mp. App. (AT) No. 133 of 2023 - - - Corporate Laws - Prayer for recall of the order dated 21.08.2023 - by order dated 21.08.2023, Appeals filed by the Appellant were dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the Appeals - HELD THAT:- When the Appellants themselves filed an application which was also disposed of by this Tribunal on 14.02.2023, they cannot be heard to say that they are not served the order. Thus, as per Section 421, Appeals were barred by limitation. In the judgment of Sagufa Ahmed [ 2020 (9) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT] , it was held that till the free of cost copy is not supplied, the limitation will not commence. In the said case, the certified copy was also applied and then the Court held that when certified copy is ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mence. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents refuting the submission of the Counsel for the Appellant submits that even as per Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, the present Appeals are barred by time. 5. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Appellant themselves filed an IA Nos. 4977-4978 of 2022 which IA was filed by the Appellant where direction was sought for payment of outstanding amount of Rs.1,09,29,254/- against the IL FS Environment and Infrastructure Ltd. as well as amount of Rs.8,53,621/- from Respondent No.1. It is submitted that in the said IA, this Tribunal has already passed an order on 14.02.2023 by which following directions were issued:- 12. I.A. No. 4977-4978 of 2022: This application has been fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .02.2021 on 22.03.2023. More than 90 days have been lapsed from filing of the application IA Nos. 4977-4978 of 2022 by the Appellant, thus, even under Section 421 of the Companies Act, the Appeals filed by the Appellant are barred by time. 7. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. 8. The order which sought to be challenged in the Appeals was order dated 02.02.2021. As noted above, IA Nos. 4977-4978 of 2022 were filed by these very Appellants seeking direction to receive the payment under the Resolution Plan. When the Appellants themselves filed an application which was also disposed of by this Tribunal on 14.02.2023, they cannot be heard to say that they are not served the order. Thus, as per Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application, but to await the receipt of a free copy of the order in terms of Section 420(3) read with Rule 50, they would be perfectly justified in falling back on Section 421(3), for fixing the date from which limitation would start running..... (emphasis supplied) However, the Court clarified that this would no longer apply once an application for a certified copy is made and the order has been received. Irrespective of when the free certified copy is received, the limitation period would then be computed from the date of receipt of the certified copy. 13..... But the appellants in this case, chose to apply for a certified copy after 27 days of the pronouncement of the order in their presence and they now fall back up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registry- whichever is later. 10. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the above judgment was referring to an earlier judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd.- 2021 (2) SCC 317 which was a case where Appeal was filed under Section 421. In the judgment of Sagufa Ahmed (supra), it was held that till the free of cost copy is not supplied, the limitation will not commence. In the said case, the certified copy was also applied and then the Court held that when certified copy is applied, the claim on the basis of that till the free of cost copy is received limitation will not run, was rejected. The said judgment does not in any manner help the Appellant. 11. Moreso, present is an applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
