9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SKS Ispat and Power Limited Ors [ 2021 (10) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT] while construing period of limitation under Section 61 of the IBC has held that the period of limitation of 30 days for filing the Appeal shall commence from the date when order was pronounced by the Adjudicating Authority and Applicant is entitled to exclude the time which is taken for obtaining certified copy of the Order. In the present case, the Appeal could have been filed within limitation till 06th June, 2022 and this Tribunal could have condoned only 15 days delay. The Appeal having been filed on 04th July, 2022 and delay being beyond 15 days is not condonable. Appeal dismissed. - I.A. No. 2431 of 2021 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 877 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2022 - Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson, [Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial) and [Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) For the Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Seth, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Gurnani and Mr. Zoheb Hossain,Advocates ORDER Ashok Bhushan, J. (Chairperson) 1. An application (I.A. No. 2431 of 2021) has been filed for 'Condonation of Delay' in filing this Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the reopening day, suffice it to say that by notification dated 01st June, 2022 issued by this Tribunal for summer vacation, filing of the Appeal was permitted through both e-filing and physical filing, hence the Tribunal was not closed for filing to give any benefit of summer vacation to the Appellant for computation of limitation. 7. The next question to be answered is as to whether the computation of limitation for filing the Appeal has to be from the date of knowledge of the Appellant as claimed or limitation begins from the date of passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority. 8. The question which has been raised in the present Appeal is no more res integra. Hon'ble Supreme Court in [(2022) 2 SCC 244] in the matter of V Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited Ors while construing period of limitation under Section 61 of the IBC has held that the period of limitation of 30 days for filing the Appeal shall commence from the date when order was pronounced by the Adjudicating Authority and Applicant is entitled to exclude the time which is taken for obtaining certified copy of the Order. In paragraph 16.1, following question was framed by the Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y resolution. ................. 32. The appellant had argued that the order of the NCLAT notes that the NCLT registry had objected to the appeal in regard to limitation, to which the appellant had filed a reply stating that the limitation period would begin from the date of the uploading of the order, which was 12 March 2020. The appellant submitted that the suo motu order of this Court dated 23 March 2020, taking retrospective effect from 15 March 2020, made under Article 142 of the Constitution, extended the limitation until further orders, which renders the appeal filed on 8 June 2020 within limitation. However it is important to note that this Court had only extended the period of limitation applicable in the proceedings, only in cases where such period had not ended before 15 March 2020. In this case, owing to the specific language of Section 61(1) and 61(2), it is evident that limitation commenced once the order was pronounced and the time taken by the Court to provide the appellant with a certified copy would have been excluded, as clarified in Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, if the appellant had applied for a certified copy within the prescribed period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panies Act 2013 read with Rule 50 of the NCLT and prevent limitation from running. Accepting such a construction will upset the timely framework of the IBC. The litigant has to file its appeal within thirty days, which can be extended up to a period of fifteen days, and no more, upon showing sufficient cause. A sleight of interpretation of procedural rules cannot be used to defeat the substantive objective of a legislation that has an impact on the economic health of a nation. 10. In paragraph 32, it has clearly been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that limitation commenced once the order was pronounced and the time taken by the Court to provide the appellant with a certified copy would have been excluded . 11. Subsequently, in another Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Safire Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Anr. , Civil Appeal No. 2212 of 2021 decided on 29.04.2022, the same issue was answered, where the submission that limitation would start from the date of knowledge has been specifically rejected. In the above case, the Order was passed by the NCLT on 22.10.2019, the Appeal was filed on 14.12.2020 in which Appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
