9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 141 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking to excuse the Delay of 15 days, in preferring the instant Appeal - time limitation - case of petitioner is that it was unable to file the instant Appeal, within the Statutorily Mandated Period, as it was facing some financial issues, due to the sudden turn of Economic Events, caused by the Russian Ukraine War - HELD THAT - The Equity, underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, that it should apply to its full extent and the time taken for diligently prosecuting a remedy in a wrong Forum, should be excluded, as per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, 2008 (4) TMI 668 - SUPREME COURT . In view of the fact that the Petitioner / Appellant had approached the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) / High Court, for one reason or the other, indulging in Bona fide Litigious Activity, it can seek / avail, the aid of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as opined by this Tribunal. Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013, provides that in disposing of any Proceeding, the Tribunal (Adjudicating Authority / NCLT) and the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), shall be guided by the Principles of Natural Justice, and subject to the other provisions of this act (or of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016) and of any Rules, made thereunder. Further, the Tribunal (NCLT) and the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) do have Power, to regulate to their own procedure. This Tribunal, on a consideration of the entire conspectus of the attendant facts and circumstances of the instant case, keeping in mind that the Petitioner / Appellant, had initiated Legal Proceedings, in an Inappropriate Forum, the ingredients of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, gets attracted, applying the same, and taking note of the instant Comp. Appeal, was filed by the Petitioner / Appellant, on 13.08.2022, well within the Limitation Period, accordingly, disposes of the instant IA No. 89 of 2023. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal 2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 3. Procedural Compliance under NCLAT Rules, 2016 Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal: The Petitioner/Appellant sought condonation for a 15-day delay in filing an appeal against the impugned order dated 29.06.2022. The delay was attributed to financial issues exacerbated by the Russian-Ukraine War. The Respondent countered that the delay was not justified, citing Rule 31 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, which mandates a supporting affidavit for such applications. The Tribunal noted that the absence of a supporting affidavit was a curable irregularity and not fatal to the application. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules are handmaids of justice and should not obstruct the delivery of justice. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The Petitioner/Appellant argued that the time spent in bona fide litigious activities, including filing applications for modification and approaching the High Court, should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Tribunal agreed, noting that Section 14 provides relief against the bar of limitation when a party has been prosecuting a remedy in a wrong forum in good faith. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in 'Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department,' which supports the exclusion of time spent in diligently prosecuting a remedy in an inappropriate forum. Procedural Compliance under NCLAT Rules, 2016: The Respondent argued that the Petitioner/Appellant's application should be dismissed for lack of a supporting affidavit as required by Rule 31 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. The Tribunal, however, held that this was a curable irregularity and directed the Petitioner/Appellant to file the supporting affidavit within two weeks to keep the records straight. The Tribunal reiterated that procedural rules should not impede the delivery of justice and that the principles of natural justice must guide the proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Petitioner/Appellant had initiated legal proceedings in an inappropriate forum and was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the main appeal was directed to be listed for hearing. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural compliance but also the necessity of flexibility to ensure justice is served.
|
