2024 (10) TMI 724 - AT - IBC

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Applicability of time limitation for filing appeal - Sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT - It is clear that 22.11.2023 was date fixed for hearing of the IA No.4434 of 2023 and the arguments were heard on IA No.4434 of 2023. It is not disputed by the Respondent that no order was pronounced on 22.11.2023 by the Court. Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate 2023 (12) TMI 1249 - SUPREME COURT (LB) supports the submission of the Appellant that when order is not pronounced in the open court, limitation for filing the appeal shall not commence. In Sanjay Pandurang Kalate case, the Hon ble Supreme Court has granted the benefit to the Appellant and held that limitation is to be counted from the date when order was uploaded on the website. Although the Appellant s case is that till 20.02.2024 the order was not uploaded. Appellant has also along with the appeal brought on record the screenshot but in the present case, there is no dispute to the fact that by e- mail dated 25.01.2024, liquidator has informed the Appellant about the order dated 22.11.2023. Thus, the Appellant cannot claim that limitation will not begin at least from 25.01.2024 when the order was communicated by the liquidator to him. The law indicate that the expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh vs. Union of India and Anr. 2023 (11) TMI 814 - SUPREME COURT has held that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. In the above case, Single Judge of the High Court has allowed Section 5 application filed by the Union of India and condoned the delay of 479 days. Ultimately, the Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal upholding the condonation of delay of 479 days. In the present case, no date of uploading has been brought on the record, hence, the date for commencement of the limitation cannot be pegged on date of uploading. However, the liquidator having shared the order on 25.01.2024, Appellant had to file the appeal within 45 days. 30 days time expired from 24.02.2024 and filing of the appeal on 02.03.2024 is within condonable period and in the facts of the present case, the sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Delay Condonation Application is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Commencement of limitation period for filing the appeal.
3. Application of legal principles regarding limitation and condonation of delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:

The primary issue addressed in the judgment is the application for condonation of delay by the appellant. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the order not being pronounced in open court and not being uploaded on the website until much later. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in "Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited and Ors." to argue that the limitation period should not commence until the order is uploaded. The respondent countered that the appellant was aware of the order by 25.01.2024, and thus, the delay in filing the appeal was not justifiable. The tribunal, after considering the arguments and the precedent set by the Supreme Court, concluded that sufficient cause was shown for the delay and allowed the condonation application.

2. Commencement of Limitation Period for Filing the Appeal:

The judgment delved into when the limitation period for filing an appeal should commence. The appellant contended that since the order was not pronounced in open court on 22.11.2023, the limitation period should start from the date the order was uploaded or communicated. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in "Sanjay Pandurang Kalate," which held that the limitation period begins from the date the order is uploaded, not from the date of hearing. In this case, the tribunal noted that the order was communicated to the appellant by the liquidator on 25.01.2024, and thus, the limitation period should commence from this date.

3. Application of Legal Principles Regarding Limitation and Condonation of Delay:

The tribunal examined several judgments to determine the principles applicable to condonation of delay. It referred to "Lingeswaran vs. Thirunagalingam" and "Sheo Raj Singh vs. Union of India," emphasizing that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously, but courts have the discretion to condone delays if sufficient cause is shown. The tribunal highlighted the distinction between an "explanation" and an "excuse," noting that an explanation provides facts and circumstances justifying the delay, while an excuse denies responsibility. The tribunal found that the appellant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, aligning with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay, finding that the appellant had shown sufficient cause. The appeal was scheduled for admission on 31.05.2024. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules while also recognizing the courts' discretion to ensure justice by condoning delays when justified.