9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 15 days, ofcourse, after the expiry of 30 days, mentioned in Section 61 (2) of the I B Code, 2016. As a matter of fact, the word requisite, means properly required, and it is for the Appellant, to show the necessity that no part of delay, beyond the prescribed period, is due to his Default. Taking note of the primordial fact that the Certified True Copy of the Impugned Order, was made ready by the Office of the Registry of the Adjudicating Authority, on 02.02.2023 (Impugned Order, came to be passed on 31.01.2023), and the instant Appeal, came to be filed on 19.03.2023, before the Office of the Registry, this Tribunal, comes to an inevitable, inescapable and irresistible conclusion, by excluding the time taken by the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal, to prepare an Order, that the instant Appeal, came to be filed on 45th day (30 + 15 = 45 Days), within the Permissible Time Period, and viewed in that perspective, Condones the Delay of 15 Days (after the expiry of 30 days, vide Section 61 (2) of the Code), that has occurred, in preferring the instant Appeal, before this Tribunal, by accepting the explanation offered, on the side of the Petitioner / Appellant. Petition al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded. (3) . (4) . Explanation. In computing under this section the time requisite for obtaining a copy of a decree or an order, any time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy thereof is made shall not be excluded. 27. In V Nagarajan (supra), a three judge Bench of this Court observed that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules 2016 mandates that an appeal has to be filed with a certified copy of the impugned order. The Court held that limitation commences once the order was pronounced and the time taken by the court to provide the appellant with a certified copy would be excluded, as clarified in Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act 1963, if the appellant had applied for a certified copy within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 61(2) of the IBC. In the facts of the case, thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied) 4. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Impugned Order in IA (IBC) / 643 / 2021 in CP (IB) No. 12 / 10 / HDB / 2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority ( National Company Law Tribunal , Hyderabad Bench), on 31.01.2023 and that the instant Company Appeal , was filed on 19.03.2023. Moreover, the period elapsed in-between was 46 days and hence, this Tribunal , is not empowered , to Condone the Delay, beyond the Period of Limitation , specified under Section 61 (2) of the I B Code, 2016, and consequently, not to Condone the Delay , in question. 5. This Tribunal , has heard the Learned Counsels, appearing for the Parties , and noticed their contentions. 6. At the outset, this Tribunal , pertinently points out that in respect of the impugned order , dated 31.01.2023 in IA (IBC) / 643 / 2021 in CP (IB) No. 12 / 10 / HDB / 2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority ( National Company Law Tribunal , Court No.2, Hyderabad Bench), according to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant, the impugned order , was passed on 31.01.2023, by the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal , and the Certified Tru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Counsel for the Respondent, refers to the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat Power Ltd Ors. (vide Civil Appeal No.: 3327 / 2020 dated 22.10.2021), reported in India Kanoon, wherein, at Paragraph 21, it is observed as under: 21. It is not open to a person aggrieved by an order under the IBC to await the receipt of a free certified copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies 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. 13. Also, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, points out that the Period of Limitation , is to be computed from the Date of the Order , and not from the Date of Knowledge , and takes a stand that the Period of 30 days , to be counted from the Date of the Impugned Order . 14. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
