2024 (3) TMI 1333 - Other - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Condonation of delay of 12 days in filing appeal - clear-cut stand of the Petitioner/Appellant, is that the period of limitation and for filing instant Appeal, shall be computed from 07.12.2022 and the 30 days' time period for filing instant Appeal expires on 06.01.2023 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, in the instant case, the Petitioner/Appellant, had not applied for a Certified Copy as per Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, contemplated under Rule 2(9)of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, and has not obtained the certified copy, on payment of, Requisite Fee, as per Rules. Therefore, the Free Cost copy of the Impugned Order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal is not a Copy Certified, contemplated as per Rule 22 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016. A provision is made in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that for securing those Certified Copies by enacting that every Public Officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a Certificate Written, at the foot of such copy, that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorised by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. As far as the present case is concerned, the delay of 12 days has computed by the 'Petitioner/Appellant', in her 'Application', from the date of receipt of 'free copy' on 07.12.2022 cannot be accepted and as per Rule 150 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, the 'Pronouncement date' can only be the date on which the 'order' was pronounced on 24.11.2022 by the 'Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal'. If calculated from the date on which the instant 'Appeal' came to be filed through 'e-portal' on 19.01.2023, the actual delay comes (after the expiry of 30 days in preferring an 'Appeal') will be 26 days. In all there is a delay of 26 days which is 'beyond the condonable period of (30 15 45 days) being the outer limit', as provided under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Applicability of Rule 50 of the National Company Law Rules, 2016.
3. Requirement of a certified copy for filing an appeal.
4. Medical grounds for condoning delay.
5. Jurisdiction and authority of the Tribunal to condone delays.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Petitioner/Appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 12 days according to their calculation, but the Registry noted a delay of 26 days. The delay was in relation to the Impugned Order dated 24.11.2022. The appeal was filed on 19.01.2023, which is beyond the condonable period of 45 days as prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay of 26 days is beyond the permissible limit and cannot be condoned.

2. Applicability of Rule 50 of the National Company Law Rules, 2016:
The Petitioner/Appellant argued that Rule 50(2) mandates the Registry to send a certified copy of the final order free of cost, which was received on 07.12.2022. However, the Tribunal clarified that Rule 50 should be read in conjunction with Rule 2(9) and Rule 22(2) of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016. The free copy received does not substitute for a certified copy required for filing an appeal.

3. Requirement of a Certified Copy for Filing an Appeal:
The Tribunal reiterated that a certified copy of the order is mandatory for filing an appeal as per Rule 22(2) of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016. The Petitioner/Appellant did not apply for a certified copy within the limitation period, thus failing to meet the requirement. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in V. Nagarajan v. SKS ISPAT and Power Limited, which emphasized the necessity of applying for a certified copy to compute the period of limitation.

4. Medical Grounds for Condoning Delay:
The Petitioner/Appellant submitted a medical certificate citing illness as a reason for the delay. However, the Tribunal held that illness, although genuine, is not a valid ground to prefer an appeal beyond the prescribed period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in National Spot Exchange Limited v. Anil Kohli, which stated that courts have no jurisdiction to carve out exceptions for condoning delays beyond statutory prescriptions.

5. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Tribunal to Condon Delays:
The Tribunal emphasized that it has no authority to condone delays beyond the statutory limit of 45 days as prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal referred to its own decision in Chanderpati v. Soni Realtors Private Limited, which reiterated that the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of pronouncement of the order, and the Tribunal cannot condone delays beyond the prescribed period.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the condone delay application (IA No.83 of 2024) due to the delay being beyond the permissible period, and consequently, the appeal (Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 23 of 2024) was also rejected. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the statutory period of limitation, highlighting that courts do not have the jurisdiction to extend or modify these statutory limits.