9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appeal till 12th June, 2022 and further he is entitled for extension of two days limitation i.e. up 14th June, 2022 and this Tribunal has power to condone the delay of only 15 days, the delay in the present Appeal is more than 15 days hence we are unable to condone the delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the case of Sagufa Ahmed Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Productions (P) Ltd. [ 2020 (9) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT] , and those observations were with regard to the said case and in so far as the limitation under Section 61, paragraph 33 and 35 are very clear. It has been noticed in paragraph 33 that Section 61(1) and 61(2) omit the requirement of limitation being computed when the Order is made available to the aggrieved party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod provided for filing the Appeal is 30 days from the date of Order. The Appellant is entitled to exclude the period for which certified copy was under preparation. Certified Copy was applied on 08th June, 2022 and delivered on 09th June, 2022 hence two days period is entitled to be excluded in computing the limitation. 13th May, 2022 was the date on which Order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority hence Appellant has time to file the Appeal till 12th June, 2022 and further he is entitled for extension of two days limitation i.e. up 14th June, 2022 and this Tribunal has power to condone the delay of only 15 days, the delay in the present Appeal is more than 15 days hence we are unable to condone the delay. 6. Learned Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill the clock for calculating the limitation period run for proceedings under the IBC; and (ii) is the annexation of a certified copy mandatory for an appeal to the NCLAT against an order passed under the IBC - must be based on a harmonious interpretation of the applicable legal regime, given that the IBC is a Code in itself and has overriding effect. Sections 61(1) and (2) of the IBC consciously omit the requirement of limitation being computed from when the order is made available to the aggrieved party , in contradistinction to Section 421(3) of the Companies Act. Owing to the special nature of the IBC, the aggrieved party is expected to exercise due diligence and apply for a certified copy upon pronouncement of the order it seeks to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of fifteen days prescribed under the proviso to Section 61(2). The lockdown from 23 March 2020 on account of the COVID-19 pandemic and the suo motu order of this Court has had no impact on the rights of the appellant to institute an appeal in this proceeding and the NCLAT has correctly dismissed the appeal on limitation. Accordingly, the present appeal under Section 62 of the IBC stands dismissed. 7. In paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the case of Sagufa Ahmed Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Productions (P) Ltd. case (2021) 2 SCC 317, and those observations were with regard to the said case and in so far as the limitation under Section 61, paragraph 33 and 35 are very clear. It has been noticed in paragraph 33 tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
