9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant himself had mentioned in the List of Dates and Events of the instant Appeal that it received a mail on 07.09.2018 from the employer Shri. Ravindra Gnanamukhi that the matter was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority and certainly, this aspect being an adverse one to it. Application dismissed. - [Justice Venugopal M] Member (Judicial) And [ V.P.Singh] Member (Technical) For thye Appellant : Mr. V. Vengadasalam, Advocate ORDER (VIRTUAL MODE) Heard the Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant. 2. According to the Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant that the Applicant/Appellant was not a party to the proceedings pending before the Adjudicating Authority and further that the Applicant/Appellant was not informed about the impugned order dated 22.11.2019 in IA No. 543/2019 in Company Petition No (IB) O3/BB/2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Bangalore). 3. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant contends that the Applicant/Appellant was not provided with a copy of the impugned order dated 22.11.2019 in I A No. 5432/2019 in Company Petition No (IB) O3/BB/2017 and as such, the Applicant/Appellant was unaware and kept in dark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all stand extended with effect from 15.03.2020 till further order/s to be passed by it, in the present proceeding. 10. At this stage, this Tribunal aptly points out the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v Kirusa Software Private Limited reported in MANU/SC/1196/2017 wherein at paragraph 26 it is inter alia observed that as under: 26. An appeal can then be filed to Appellate Tribunal under Section 61 of the Act within 30 days of the order of the Adjudicating Authority with an extension of 15 days further days and no more. 11. Moreover, the Hon ble Supreme Court in its order dated 8.3.2001 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3of 2020 IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION, at Paragraph 2, had issued the following directions: 1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.3.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.3.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 14.03.2021. 2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is a statutory command by the legislation as regards limitation and there is the postulate that delay can be condoned for a further period not exceeding sixty days, needless to say, it is based on certain underlined, fundamental, general issues of public policy as has been held in Union Carbide Corpn. Case (Union Carbide Corpn. V Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584). As the pronouncement in Chhattisgarh SEB v Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) 5 SCC 23, lays down quite clearly that the policy behind the Act emphasising on the constitution of a special adjudicatory forum, is meant to expeditiously decide the grievances of a person who may be aggrieved by an order of the adjudicating officer or by an appropriate Commission. The Act is a special legislation within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the prescription with regard to the limitation has be the binding effect and the same has to be followed regard being had to its mandatory nature. To put in in a different way, the prescription of limitation is a case of further delay not beyond 60 days, it would come within the ambit and sweep of the provisions and policy of legislation. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on 03.01.2020 had addressed a letter to the Liquidator informing about the Priority of Dues and requested him to submit Form H for information and that on 25.02.2020 a reminder was sent to the Liquidator because of the fact that no response was received from him. Also that, a letter was mailed to the Registrar of the Tribunal on 08.05.2020, since no response was received from the Liquidator that on 10.06.2020 a letter was received from the Registrar of National Company Law Tribunal, Bangalore requesting to prefer an appeal against the impugned order legally. 19. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant contends that the certified copy of the impugned order in IA No. 543 of 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority was not served to the Applicant/Appellant by the Registry of the Tribunal as per Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 and as such, the Applicant/Appellant was unaware about the status of the case. 20. In regard to the plea of the Applicant/Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Bengaluru) had not served the copy of the impugned order to it, it is to be pointed out that as per Rule 50 of the NCLT, Rules, 2016 the Registry shall send a certified copy of the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
