2023 (10) TMI 897 - AT - Companies Law

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 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. Moreso, present is an application for recall of the judgment. The order passed by this Tribunal was passed after hearing the counsel for the Appellant. The ground for recall has already been settled by Five Member Bench s Judgment of this Tribunal in Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) vs. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian Ors. 2023 (7) TMI 209 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI where grounds for recall are clearly laid down. There is no ground for recall of the judgment. Applications are rejected.

Summary

Issues involved: Application for recall of order based on delay in filing Appeals under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Summary:
The Appellant filed an Application seeking to recall an order dated 21.08.2023, where Appeals were dismissed due to delay in filing. The Appellant argued that the Appeals were filed under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the limitation for filing the Appeal should not start until the copy of the order is served. However, the Respondents contended that the Appeals were time-barred even under Section 421. The Respondents highlighted that the Appellant had previously filed an application seeking payment under a Resolution Plan, which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 14.02.2023. The present Appeals were filed more than 90 days after this application, making them time-barred under Section 421.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and records and noted that the order being challenged in the Appeals was dated 02.02.2021. The Appellants themselves had filed an application related to the Resolution Plan, which was disposed of on 14.02.2023. Therefore, the Appellants cannot claim ignorance of the order, and as per Section 421, the Appeals were barred by limitation. The Appellant cited a Supreme Court judgment regarding the computation of limitation under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, emphasizing the date of receipt of the certified copy as the starting point for limitation. However, the Tribunal found that the cited judgment did not support the Appellant's position.

Moreover, the Tribunal referred to a previous judgment regarding grounds for recall of a judgment, stating that the present case did not fall within any permissible grounds for recall. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no valid reason for recalling the judgment, and the Applications for recall were rejected.