9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (10) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT] that limitation for filing an appeal shall commence from the date when the order is pronounced. The above judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court with regard to commencement of period of limitation from the date order is pronounced/ delivered is firmly settled. Limitation shall start for filing appeal from the date of pronouncement of order i.e. on 13.01.2023 but not against the Corporate Debtor of which Appellant is suspended Director rather limitation shall start against the Company Mansfield Cables Company Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., against whom the order was passed. The law is well settled that limitation for filing Appeal shall commence from the date when order is delivered or pronounced but present is a case where order was passed against different Corporate Debtor namely Mansfield Cables Company Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which came to be corrected on 17.01.2023 and order dated 17.01.2023 correcting the name of the company was not in the knowledge of the present Corporate Debtor. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the Appellant is entitled to seek condonation of delay in filing the appeal which according to the Appellant has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Creditor moved application being I.A. No.244 of 2023 in Company Petition (IB) No. 79 (ND) 2021, on which the Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 17.03.2023 and observed that although serious mistake has committed on behalf of the applicant, however, Court is not inclined to take any further action and accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the IRP of the applicant company. The Adjudicating Authority on 17.01.2023 changed the name of Corporate Debtor from Mansfield Cables Company Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to Mansfield Power Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Corporate Debtor of which the Appellant is suspended Director. It is submitted that the Appellant received the information of the order dated 13.01.2023 by letter dated 18.01.2023 received on 07.02.2023 and appeal has been filed with delay of 6 days, which need to be condoned. 3. The application for delay condonation has been opposed by both the Operational Creditor as well as the Resolution Professional. Reply by Respondent No.1 and 2 has been filed to the delay condonation application. Opposing the delay condonation it is stated by Respondent No.1 in his reply that order dated 13.01.2023 is not ex-parte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy before the expiry of the limitation period, upon which the time requisite for obtaining a copy is to be excluded. However, the time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy is made cannot be excluded. If no application for a certified copy has been made, no exclusion can ensue. In fact, the explanation to the provision is a clear indicator of the legal position that the time which is taken by the court to prepare the decree or order cannot be excluded before the application to obtain a copy is made. It cannot be said that the right to receive a free copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies Act obviated the obligation on the appellant to seek a certified copy through an application. The appellant has urged that Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules empowers the NCLAT to exempt parties from compliance with the requirement of any of the rules in the interests of substantial justice, which has been typically exercised in favour of allowing a downloaded copy in lieu of a certified copy. While it may well be true that waivers on filing an appeal with a certified copy are often granted for the purposes of judicial determination, they do not confer an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied copy in spite of the application till such date and accordingly received the benefit of the suo motu order of this Court which came into effect on 15 March 2020. However, in the absence of an application for a certified copy, the appeal was barred by limitation much prior to the suo motu direction of this court, even after factoring in a permissible fifteen days of condonation under Section 61(2). The Court is not empowered to condone delays beyond statutory prescriptions in special statutes containing a provision for limitation. 33. The answer to the two issues set out in Section C of the judgement- (i) when will 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 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the Applicant, we are not inclined to take any further action in the matter in view of the unconditional apology tendered by the IRP of the Applicant Company present personally. In view of the averments made in the application and submissions made by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the IRP of the Applicant Company and IRP appearing in person, we hereby order that: The name of the corporate debtor in the order dated 13.01.2023 be read as MANSFIELD POWER INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED in place of MANSFIELD CABLES COMPANY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED . The amended order is appended herewith. IRP of the Corporate Debtor Mr. Vikram Bajaj having IBBI Registration No. IBBL/IPA-002/IP NO003/2016- 2017/10003 (Mob. No. 9999989408) (Email ID: [email protected]) is directed to take all necessary steps for the furtherance of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, as per the corrected Memo of Parties and corrected name of the CD. With this, the present application stands allowed. 8. The order dated 17.01.2023 was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on I.A. No. 244 of 2023 which order dated 17.01.203 cannot be said to be notice to Mansfield Power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
