TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be counted from 17th August, 2023 or not? - HELD THAT:- The Judgment which has been relied by Learned Counsel for the Appellant in Ashok Tiwari [ 2023 (11) TMI 313 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI ] was case where Appeal was filed against the subsequent order dated 12th May, 2023 which was an order passed on application filed by the Appellant for rectification of the earlier order dated 15th February, 2023. The rectification application was decided on 12th May, 2023 and the Appeal which came for consideration before the Tribunal was considered against the subsequent order dated 12th May, 2023. Observations were made by the Court were in reference to that context. Present Appeal is not against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chairperson , [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) And [ Arun Baroka ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Ankit Virmani, Mr. Amit Singh, Mr. Hrithik Sharma, Advocates Mr. Kabeer Pansare, Ms. Ruchika For the Respondents : Mr. Tishampati Sen, Ms. Riddhi Sanchiti, Mr. Ashish Parwani, Mr. Devesh Juvekar, Mr. Dikshat Mehra, Mr. Chintan Gandhi, Mr. Anurag Anand, Mr. Himanshu K., Mr. Mukul K., Advocates ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) I.A. No. 5116 of 2023. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal. The Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 2nd May, 2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority deciding Preferential Transaction Application being I.A. No. 1927 of 2021 filed by the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll merge in the order dated 17th August, 2023 hence the limitation be counted from 17th August, 2023 and the present appeal filed against order dated 2nd May, 2023 is well within time. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of his submission has relied on Judgment of this Tribunal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 2179, Ashok Tiwari Vs. Tattva Mittal Lifespaces Pvt. Ltd. as well as the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in 2012 6 SCC 782, DSR Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors . 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent refuting the submissions of the Appellant submits that the limitation for filing the Appeal against the Order dated 2nd May, 2023 shall commence from 2nd May, 2023. Learned Counsel for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing the order dated 02.05.2023, more specifically MOU dated 15.11.2018 entered amongst the applicant, the Corporate Debtor, and the proprietorship firm of director of Corporate Debtor M/s. Ornate Developers. It was noticed at that time that the said MOU bears the signature of Mr. Vijay Machinder on behalf of the director of the Corporate Debtor as well as proprietor of Ornate Developers, and the stamp of the Corporate Debtor was affixed on any of the place in the said MOU. Also, the said MOU had no witness, and Mr. Vijay Machinder has signed on each page, except last page, once thereby suggesting that the said signatures was on behalf of his proprietorship firm and not behalf of Corporate Debtor. Further, this agreement having been ente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court in the matter of DSR Steel Pvt. Ltd. as noted above, paragraph 25 of the Judgment which is to be following effect: 25. Different situations may arise in relation to review petitions filed before a Court or Tribunal. 25.1 One of the situations could be where the review application is allowed, the decree or order passed by the Court or Tribunal is vacated and the appeal/proceedings in which the same is made are re- heard and a fresh decree or order passed in the same. It is manifest that in such a situation the subsequent decree alone is appealable not because it is an order in review but because it is a decree that is passed in a proceeding after the earlier decree passed in the very same proceedings has been vacated by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the filing of the appeal, but such exclusion or condonation would not imply that there is a merger of the original decree and the order dismissing the review petition. 12. In the said case, the Hon ble Supreme Court was considering question of review application which review application was filed under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. There was power of review conferred on the commission as has been noticed in the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court. In the above context, the Hon ble Supreme Court laid down preposition as noted in paragraph 25. Present is a case which is covered by Paragraph 25.3 of the above judgment where the Hon ble Supreme Court has clearly held that even a case of rejection of review the original order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
