9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han, J. This is an application praying for Condonation of Delay in filing the Appeal. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Court-IV. The Appeal have been e-filed on 06.01.2024. The ground taken in the Affidavit is that the order dated 07.11.2023 was uploaded on the website of the NCLT only on 19.12.2023 and the Appellant applied for certified copy which was received only on 20.12.2023, hence, the delay may be condoned. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited & Ors.- Civil Appeal Nos. 7467-7468 of 2023" decided on 04.12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that no substantive order was pronounced on 17.05.2023 and the order was uploaded only on 30.05.2023. It was noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 17.05.2023 was day when hearing was concluded but no substantive order was passed. In paragraph 19 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, following has been noticed:- "19. In the present case, the cause list for 17 May 2023 placed on record by the appellant indicates that the case was listed for admission and not for pronouncement. Further, on a specific query of the Court, it is not in dispute between counsel for the appellant and the respondent, that no substantive order was passed on 17 May 2023 by the NCLT. In these circumstances, limitation would not begin to run on 17 May 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the impugned Order came to be passed". There are no averments in the application that no order was passed on 07.11.2023 by the Court. Appellant sought to rely on date of uploading of the order which may not help the Appellant in the present case. As noticed above, the order was passed in presence of both the parties whose presence are noted in the order. We, thus, are of the view that the limitation to file an appeal shall commence from 07.11.2023 and the Appeal having been filed beyond 15 days after expiry of the limitation, delay cannot be condoned. Our jurisdiction to condone the delay is limited to only 15 days by Section 61(2) proviso.
10. In result, the Delay Condonation Application is dismissed. Memo of Appeal is rejected. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
