9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 1424 - AT - IBCPrayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal - typographical error - HELD THAT - The order was delivered by the Court on 08.12.2023 and 30 days period of limitation came to end on 07.01.2024 and further 15 days period expired on 22.01.2024. The reason for not filing the appeal as claimed by the Appellant is that the application for correction of the order was filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority on 13.01.2024 i.e. after 30 days from passing of the order. IA which was filed for correction was allowed on 29.04.2024 where the Adjudicating Authority has noted that judgment was delivered on 08.12.2023 which is also clearly evident from the contents of the order as well as the last page of the order. Thus the application was allowed and it was noted that the typographical error correcting the judgment stands corrected and order may be read as part of the main order dated 08.12.2023. Whether limitation for filing the appeal shall commence from 08.12.2023 or it shall commence from 29.04.2024? - HELD THAT - The judgment relied by learned counsel for the Respondent in Yerramaneni Ramakrishna Ors. Vs. Suraksha Realty Ltd. Ors. 2024 (10) TMI 511 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI - LB do support the submission of the Respondent in the above case where the typographical error in mentioning the date as 13.06.2024 was corrected as 13.05.2024. In the judgment Para 7 the correction allowed by the Court was noticed. This Tribunal in Para 8 noticing the V. Nagarajan s judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court 2021 (10) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT (LB) has held that the limitation for filing the appeal shall commence after pronouncement of the order. In the above case it was held that period of limitation in filing the appeal commences from the date when order was pronounced. Relying on the aforesaid precedent we are of the view that in the present case the limitation for filing the appeal shall commence from 08.12.2023 the date when order was pronounced by the Tribunal. Conclusion - There is no case that there was modification of order rather there is correction of the date of the order. Further there is no dispute between the parties that judgment was delivered on 08.12.2023 which is an admitted fact. The limitation for filing the appeal shall commence from 08.12.2023 and the appeal which was filed by the Appellant was beyond condonable period i.e. beyond 45 days. There are no ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. Appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The core legal question addressed in this judgment is whether the limitation period for filing an appeal should commence from the original date of pronouncement of the order (08.12.2023) or from the date when a typographical error in the order's date was corrected (29.04.2024). 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The legal framework centers around the limitation period for filing appeals as governed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the relevant procedural rules. The precedents considered include the decision in "Yerramaneni Ramakrishna & Ors. Vs. Suraksha Realty Ltd. & Ors." and the Supreme Court's judgment in "V. Nagarajan," which clarifies that the limitation period commences from the date of pronouncement of the order. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The court emphasized that the limitation period begins from the date the order is pronounced. The tribunal noted that the typographical correction of the date from 08.12.2022 to 08.12.2023 did not alter the substantive content or the pronouncement date of the order. The tribunal relied on the precedent set in "V. Nagarajan," which established that the limitation period starts from the pronouncement date, irrespective of subsequent corrections that do not modify the judgment's content. Key Evidence and Findings The tribunal found that the order was indeed pronounced on 08.12.2023, as evidenced by the contents and the last page of the order. The correction made on 29.04.2024 was solely to rectify a typographical error and did not constitute a modification of the judgment. Application of Law to Facts Applying the legal principles from the precedents, the tribunal concluded that the limitation for filing the appeal commenced from 08.12.2023. The appeal was filed on 12.06.2024, which was beyond the permissible 45-day period (30 days plus an additional 15 days for condonation). Treatment of Competing Arguments The appellant argued that the limitation should commence from 29.04.2024, the date of correction. However, the tribunal rejected this argument, distinguishing the present case from the "Ashok Tiwari" case, where a substantive modification of the order had occurred. The tribunal reiterated that only a typographical correction was made, which does not affect the limitation period commencement. Conclusions The tribunal concluded that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period, and no grounds existed to condone the delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay and the memo of appeal were rejected. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning "The period of limitation in filing the appeal commences from the date when the order was pronounced." This principle was reiterated in line with the "V. Nagarajan" decision. Core Principles Established
Final Determinations on Each Issue The tribunal determined that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period and rejected the application for condonation of delay, as well as the memo of appeal, based on the established legal principles regarding the commencement of the limitation period.
|
