9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 983 - AT - IBCCondonation of 18 days delay in filing the appeal - Appellant submits that the delay is not 18 days since he is entitled for the benefit of the time when he received the free of cost copy from the NCLT - HELD THAT - Present is the case where it is not the case of the appellant that he even applied for certified copy of the order. He is relying only on the free of cost copy of the order which stated to be received on 23.07.2024. The Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court which has relied by appellant itself indicate that the litigant who does not apply for the certified copy cannot then fall back and claim that he was awaiting the grant of the free copy to obviate the bar of limitation - Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in V Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. Ors. 2021 (10) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT (LB) has laid down that limitation for filing the appeal commences from the date of order is pronounced and litigant has to be vigilant in applying the certified copy of the order. The mere fact that the appellant received free of cost copy on 23.07.2024 cannot arrest the running of the limitation which began on the date when the Judgment was pronounced. The judgment which has been relied by the appellant in STATE BANK OF INDIA VERSUS INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED 2024 (10) TMI 883 - SUPREME COURT where the delay was within the condonable period. In the present case the delay being of 18 days is beyond our jurisdiction as per Section 61(2) proviso. The delay condonation petition is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal based on the receipt of a free of cost copy. 2. Interpretation of rules regarding the requirement of a certified copy for filing an appeal. 3. Application of legal precedents regarding the commencement of the limitation period for filing an appeal. Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with an application for condonation of an 18-day delay in filing an appeal, where the appellant argues that the delay should be excluded as he received a free of cost copy of the order after the prescribed period. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court judgment in "State Bank of India vs. India Power Corporation Ltd." to support his claim. However, the tribunal noted that the appellant did not apply for a certified copy and only relied on the free copy received on a later date. The tribunal referenced the principles laid down in previous judgments to emphasize the importance of vigilance in obtaining a certified copy to avoid delays in filing appeals. 2. The tribunal analyzed the rules governing the requirement of a certified copy for filing an appeal. It highlighted the distinction between a free copy and a certified copy, emphasizing that a litigant must apply for a certified copy promptly after the order is pronounced. Referring to Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules and Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, the tribunal clarified that the receipt of a free copy does not excuse a litigant from the obligation to apply for a certified copy within the prescribed time frame. The tribunal emphasized that procedural rules cannot be manipulated to circumvent the substantive objectives of the legislation. 3. The judgment also delved into the application of legal precedents regarding the commencement of the limitation period for filing an appeal. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in "V Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. & Ors.," the tribunal reiterated that the limitation period for filing an appeal starts from the date the order is pronounced, and litigants must exercise due diligence in obtaining a certified copy promptly. The tribunal emphasized that the mere receipt of a free copy after the limitation period has expired does not justify condonation of delay, especially when the delay exceeds the permissible limit. In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the delay condonation petition and the memo of appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines for filing appeals and obtaining certified copies promptly to avoid delays and uphold the integrity of the legal process.
|
