9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.A. No. 1548 of 2022 : This application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal. 2. In brief, the Appeal has been filed by the Unsuccessful Applicant (MLS LED Ltd.) whose application, bearing CP (IB) No. 219/ALD/2018, filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') against HQ Lamps and Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent herein) has been dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Prayagraj). 3. The Appeal has been filed under Section 61(1) of the Code. The relevant averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay are as under:- "It is submitted that the Impugned judgment was made available to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Appellant/Applicant even did not apply for the certified copy of the impugned order, therefore, it is not entitled to seek exclusion of the period from the date of pronouncement of the order till the date of its uploading for the purpose of counting the limitation. 7. It is also averred that as per the decision of the Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Lingeswaran Etc. Vs. Thirunagalingam [Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054-2055 of 2022] decided on 25.02.2023, it is imperative to show sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay as it cannot be condoned on equity. 8. The Appellant/Applicant has filed the rejoinder in which it is admitted that the operative portion of the impugned order was pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tories for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay but neither of it is believable because the only averment made in the application is that the copy of the order was uploaded on the website of the NCLT on 14.03.2022, therefore, the limitation has been counted from the said date instead of pronouncement of the order dated 02.03.2022, therefore, it is alleged in the application that there is a delay of 10 days but when the reply was filed by the Respondent and it was pointed out that the limitation has to be counted from 02.03.2022 in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Nagarajan (Supra) i.e. the date of pronouncement of the order and not the date of knowledge and since the period of 45 days had expired on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t limitation shall start running from the date of order whereas the case set up by the Appellant in the application is that since the impugned order was uploaded by the Tribunal on 14.03.2022, therefore, the limitation shall be counted from the said date and thus there is a delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal. 14. In order to overcome the difficulties being faced, the Appellant has developed a new story in order to take the advantage of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as per which the period spent by the office in preparing the certified copy has to be excluded from the total period of limitation and in this regard, it is alleged that after the order was pronounced on 02.03.2022 the certified copy was applied which was mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
