9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at a `Tribunal / `Appellate Tribunal , is not to pass an `Order , in a given `Legal Proceeding , before it, as `opposed to Law . When the I B Code, 2016, the `Tribunal and `Appellate Tribunal , Rules 2016, are quite clear, without any `ambiguity or `incongruity , etc., the same will have to be pressed into service and applied, overriding `Equities , despite, `Unpalatable Consequences flowing thereto. It cannot be brushed aside that the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank (Financial Creditor), has failed to `apply for a `Certified Copy (`Paid Copy ) of the `Impugned Order , from the `Adjudicating Authority / `Tribunal , prior to the `Expiry of `Limitation Period on 29.11.2023. The Filing of the instant Comp. App by the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank (Financial Creditor), before this `Appellate Tribunal , with the aid of `Free of Cost Copy (`Certified True Copy of the `Impugned Order , duly signed by the `Officer concerned of the `Adjudicating Authority / `Tribunal ), cannot be a `Substitute for `every Appeal , to be `accompanied , by the `Certified Copy (`Paid Copy ) of the `Impugned Order , as opined by this `Tribunal , in the teeth of Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. Viewed in that p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Advocate For Ms. Deepika Murali Ms. Nivea , Advocates ORDER (Hybrid Mode) Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial): Introduction: The Petitioner / Appellant / Bank / Financial Creditor (State Bank of India), has preferred the instant IA No. 158 / 2024 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 53 of 2024, praying for the `Condonation of delay of 3 days , in preferring the instant `Company Appeal , before this `Tribunal , in respect of the `Order , dated 30.10.2023 in CP (IB) No. 205 / 7 / HDB / 2021, passed by the `Adjudicating Authority / `National Company Law Tribunal , Special Bench - I, Hyderabad Bench. Petitioner / Appellant / Bank (Financial Creditor s) Contentions: 2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank (Financial Creditor), submits that by means of an `Impugned Order , dated 30.10.2023 in CP (IB) No. 205 / 7 / HDB / 2021, filed by the Appellant / Petitioner / Bank (Financial Creditor), under Section 7 of the I B Code, 2016, r/w. Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 r/w. Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, before the `Adjudicating Authority / `National Company Law Tribunal , Special B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor), comes out with a `plea that as per Section 61(1) of the I B Code, 2016, this `Tribunal , has power to `extend / `allow , the `Appeal , to be filed, within an extended period of 15 days (after the expiry of 30 days, as enjoined under Section 61(2) of the Code). Further, the cumulative period of 45 days, has still `not expired , and therefore, the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank, is well within such further extended period, assuming that the `period , for securing the `Certified Copy , is `not being excluded , for any reason. 6. It is the stand of the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank, that the `Hon ble Supreme Court of India , in the matter of `Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Private Ltd., 2023 , SCC OnLine SC 976 (vide Paragraph Nos. 4 30), has held that `an Appeal , which was filed, within the outer limit of 45 days, would be maintainable in view of Section 61(2) of the I B Code, 2016, especially, since the `explanation , regarding time taken, to obtain `Legal Advice , collating documents and coordinating with the Learned Counsel during `Festive Season , was `sufficient . 7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant, also cites the decision of this `Tribunal , in Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the `Requisite Fees . 13. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant, adverts to Rule 2 (10) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, defining `Certified by Tribunal , in relation, to a copy of a Document, to mean `Certified to be a `True Copy , issued by the `Registry or of a `Bench of the `Tribunal , under its hand and seal and as provided in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872). 14. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant, refers to Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as under: 76. Certified copies of public documents - Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees there for, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. Explanation. - Any officer who, by the ordina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority / `Tribunal , had filed, the `Free of Cost Copy , that was provided to it, as the `Certified Copy , along with the `Comp. App (AT) (INS) No. 69 of 2023 , which was admitted by this `Tribunal , and Final Orders were passed, on 04.10.2023. 20. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant, submits that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, as a matter of practice, also exempts, `filing of a Certified Copy . Further, the `Adjudicating Authority / `Tribunal , is required to send `a Free of Cost Certified Copy , as per Rule 50 150 of NCLT Rules, 2016, and only, `Third Parties , to a `Proceeding , are required to pay a Fee, for securing, a `Certified Copy of the `NCLT Order . 21. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Petitioner / Bank, contends that the Appellant, is a `Public Sector Bank , and a `Custodian of a `Public Money , and that the `Amount of Debt, due from the `Respondent , is over INR 500.48 Crore of `Public Money , and that, the `Balance of Convenience , is in favour of the `Bank . 22. While summing up, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank, prays for allowing of IA No. 158 / 2024 (Condonation of Delay Application), in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd playing the role of a political reformer or of a wise counsel to the legislature. The court has to proceed on the footing that the legislature intended what it has said and even if there is some defect in the phraseology, etc., it is for others than the court to remedy that defect. The statute requires to be interpreted without doing any violence to the language used therein. The court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the reason that it has no power to legislate. 25. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant, points out the Judgment dated 01.12.2021, of this `Tribunal , (vide Comp. App (AT) (INS) Nos. 918 to 921 of 2021, in the matter of M/s. Hasmukh N. Shah Associates v. M/s. Victoria Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 5305, wherein at Paragraph No. 24, it is observed as under: 24. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 12, in computing the period of limitation for an appeal, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order of Appeal, is to be excluded. Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 cannot be read to be a Rule governing the limitation. In event, the argument of the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though, the Appellant has made this statement of fact in para 17 of the appeal and has declared it to be true while making a declaration and verification of the contents of appeal but as a matter of fact, no certified copy was applied at all much less on 01.08.2023, therefore, it was never received on 10.08.2023 as stated and no certified copy has been appended with the grounds of appeal as well even after it has been filed. The question would thus arise as to why the Appellant has made false averments in the grounds of appeal? The averment made in the grounds of appeal are further declared to be true and also that nothing has been suppressed and concealed and an affidavit has been filed in support of the appeal. In para 2 of the affidavit, he has averred that the contents of the accompanying appeal are true and correct to his knowledge and belief as also derived from the records of the company and in the affidavit it is also verified that the declaration of the contents of the affidavit are true and correct. However, in the application filed for seeking condonation of delay, the Appellant took a summersault and changed the entire case alleging that the first appeal has been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date when free certified copy was made available in so far as the first appeal is concerned whereas no such plea has been taken in so far as the second appeal is concerned in which the averment has been made that the appeal has been filed with the copy given by the RP and lastly even if there is a delay of 10 days for which the application has been filed for condonation of delay, no ground has been made out for the purpose of condoning the delay which would fall within the parameters of sufficient cause and finally the case of the Respondent is fully covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of V. Nagarajan (Supra) and Sanjay Pandurang Kalate (Supra). 27. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant, points out the Order of this `Tribunal , dated 16.12.2020, in ADS Resources Limited v. Shilpi Cables Technologies Limited (vide Comp App (AT) (INS) No. 1070 / 2020), wherein, it is observed as under: IA No. 2885 of 2020 has been filed by the Appellant for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order dated 17th July, 2020. Appellant shall file certified copy of the impugned order within two weeks from the date same is made availa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of 15 days , ended on, 15.12.2023. However, the present `Appeal , was filed on 02.12.2023. 33. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, refers to Rule 22 (1) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, which enjoins that `every Appeal has to be presented in Form NCLAT I , and further that, as per Rule 22 (2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, `every Appeal is to be accompanied by a Certified (applied for and paid) copy of the Impugned Order. Also that, Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, enables this `Appellate Tribunal , to `exempt the Parties , from complying with any of the requirements of the Rules. 34. According to the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat Power Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC at Page 244, while referring to Rule 22 (2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, has held that in consonance of Rule 22 (2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, `the Aggrieved Party, is obligated to `apply , for and obtain a Certified Copy of the Impugned Order before the expiry, of `Limitation Period , and that the said `Certified Copy , so secured, `mandatorily , has to be annexed with the Appeal . 35. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, refers to Paragraph No. 33 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the `Impugned Order is `mandatory . 41. According to the Respondent, in the instant case, the `Appeal , was filed on 02.12.2023, Viz. Two days (as per `Registry it is Three days), after the expiry of specified period of Limitation for 30 days, together with a `Free of Cost Copy , which was made ready and available on 14.11.2023, and the fact of the matter, is the Petitioner / Appellant has not even applied for a `Certified Copy (Paid Copy), of the `Impugned Order . 42. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent points out that the time taken to procure the `Certified Copy of the `Impugned Order , will be excluded, from the calculation of the `Period of Limitation , provided, the Petitioner / Appellant applies within the prescribed `Period of Limitation , under Section 61 (2) of the I B Code, 2016. 43. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, refers to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in V. Nagarajan case (2022) 2 SCC Page 244, wherein, it is observed and held that `it is not open to a `Person Aggrieved , by an `Order , under I B Code, 2016, 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 Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act, 2013 when prescribing the right of an aggrieved party to file an appeal before NCLAT along within the stipulated period of limitation. The notable difference between Section 421(3) of the Companies Act and Section 61(2) IBC is in the absence of the words from the date on which a copy of the order of the Tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved in the latter. The absence of these words cannot be construed as a mere omission which can be supplemented with a right to a free copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies Act read with Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules for the purposes of reckoning limitation. This would ignore the context of IBC's provisions and the purpose of the legislation. 29. On the question of a certified copy for filing an appeal against an order passed by the NCLT under the IBC, Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules mandates that an appeal has to be filed with a certified copy of the impugned order : 22. Presentation of appeal. (1) Every appeal shall be presented in Form NCLAT-1 in triplicate by the appellant or petitioner or applicant or respondent, as the case may be, in person or by his duly au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d party in pursuing the litigation in a timely fashion. In a similar factual scenario, NCLAT had dismissed an appeal 21 as time-barred under Section 61(2) of the IBC since the appellant therein was present in court, and yet chose to file for a certified copy after five months of the pronouncement of the order. 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 IBC; and (ii) is the annexation of a certified copy mandatory for an appeal to the NCLAT against an order passed under IBC must be based on a harmonious interpretation of the applicable legal regime, given that IBC is a Code in itself and has overriding effect. Sections 61(1) and (2) 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 IBC, the aggrieved party is expected to exercise due diligence and apply for a certified copy upon pronouncement of the order it seeks to assail, in consonance with the requirements of Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules. Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de Comp. App (AT) (INS) No. 691 of 2023), wherein, at Paragraph No. 67, it is observed as under: 67. Three appeals i.e. Appeals No. 1135 of 2022, 1136 of 2022 and 270 of 2023 in which no application for seeking exemption has been filed are held to be not maintainable because the Hon ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the case of V. Nagarajan (Supra) that the Appellant cannot on his own dispense with the filing of the certified copy and in the absence of any application for exemption, these three appeals are hereby dismissed. Appraisal: 49. The stand of the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank (Financial Creditor), is that the `Impugned Order in CP (IB) No. 205 / 7 / HDB / 2021 (filed under Sec. 7 of the I B Code, 2016, on the File of the `Adjudicating Authority / `National Company Law Tribunal , Special Bench I, Hyderabad), was passed on 30.10.2023, in and by which, the main `Company Petition , was rejected in an `arbitrary and erroneous manner , by the `Adjudicating Authority / `Tribunal , and the same is liable to be set aside, for meeting the `ends of Justice . 50. On behalf of the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank, it is submitted, that the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank, has file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , to the `Underlying Proceedings , and this is because of the fact, that `any Third Party , which may be `Aggrieved , can also prefer an `Appeal , against an `Order of the `Adjudicating Authority / `Tribunal , as per Section 61(1) of the I B Code, 2016, which enjoins that `Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013 (18 of 2013), any person Aggrieved by the Order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an Appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal . 56. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank, points out that from `a conjoint reading of Section 61(1) of the I B Code, 2016 with Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 with Rules, 50, 150(3) and Entry 31 of Schedule of Fees of NCLT Rules, 2016, it is clear that; Party which wants to prefer an Appeal Payment if any which is required to be made by such party for getting a certified true copy of the Order Party which was also a party to the proceedings before the Hon ble Adjudicating Authority Viz. `concerned party No Fees is payable A third party which was not a party to the underlying proceedings before the Hon ble Adjudicating Authority Viz. which is not `c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting Authority / `Tribunal , in CP (IB) No. 205 / 7 / HDB / 2021 (Filed by the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank as Annexure A1 vide Vol-II at Page 378 of the main `Appeal Paper Book ), the `date of Judgment , is mentioned as 30.10.2023 and the `copy of the same , was made ready, on 14.11.2023. 63. The categorical stand of the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank, is that the `Certified True Copy of the `Impugned Order of the `Adjudicating Authority `Tribunal , was signed by the `Dy. Registrar , NCLT, Hyderabad Bench (Viz. `an Officer of the `Adjudicating Authority / `Tribunal ) and `contains the`Official Seal , of the `NCLT, Hyderabad Bench , along with a `Stamp , indicating that the `Order is a `Certified Copy . 64. The Petitioner / Appellant / Bank, takes a plea, that the `Filing of a Certified True Copy of the `Impugned Order , as opposed to a `Paid Certificate True Copy , is `not a defect , in preferring the instant `Appeal and can only be considered to be a `just hyper technicality . 65. Conversely, the plea of the Respondent is that the `right to receive a Free Copy of the Impugned Order , as per Section 420 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013, read with Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... `no part of delay , was due to his / its `Latches . 72. No wonder, the `act of preferring an `Application , praying for a `Certified Copy , of the `Impugned Order , before the `Adjudicating Authority / `Tribunal , as per the NCLAT Rules, 2016, is not a `mere technical / procedural requirement , for `calculating, the `period of Limitation . Substantive Right: 73. A mere running of the eye of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, points out that it confers a `Substantive Right , upon a `Party . The duty of the `Court / `Tribunal , is to exclude the time, when a given case, comes within, the ambit of any of the sub-section, 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Impact of Sec. 12 of the Limitation Act: 74. It is pointed out by this `Tribunal , that the `Period , mentioned in various sub-section of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, will have to be added to the `Limitation Period , for ascertaining the `Last Date , for preferring an `Appeal . Also that, the `period , that falls within it, is also to be included, when the period, under sub-section 2 of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is to be supplemented, as per decision in Nrisingha Murari Dutta v. Ajit Kumar Dutta, reported i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing to genuineness viz. illness, accident, etc. However, under the statute, Parliament has not carved out any exception of such a situation. Therefore, in a given case, it may cause hardship, however, unless Parliament has carved out any exception by a provision of law, the period of limitation has to be given effect to. Such powers are only with Parliament and the legislature. The courts have no jurisdiction and / or authority to carve out any exception. If the courts carve out an exception, it would amount to legislate which would in turn might be inserting the provision to the statute, which is not permissible. 81. In the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in V. Nagarajan v. SKS ISPAT Power Limited Ors., (2022), 2 SCC, Page 244 at Spl Pg: 254, wherein, at Paragraph 6.7, it is observed as under: 6.7. Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 ( the Limitation Act ), applies from the date on which the copy of the order is made available and not from the date when such order is passed. The explanation to Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act would not be attracted in cases where a free copy is mandated by the statute and online copies can be used for filing an appeal. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the search for legal principles. 87. It is to be remembered, that `Speed , is the gist of the `I B Code, 2016 , and a `Person / `Stakeholder , is expected to exhibit `due diligence , in `applying , for a `Certified Copy (Paid Copy), of the `Impugned Order (upon the `Pronouncement of the Order ), of course, duly certified to be `True Copy , by the concerned `Officer of the `Tribunal , and at any cost, not to a wait for the `Receipt of the `Free Certified Copy , to be transmitted by the `Office of the Registry of the `Tribunal , at a later point of time. 88. At this juncture, this `Tribunal , aptly points out, the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. LAO (2014) 1 SCC (CIV) 149, wherein, it is observed and held that `the Law of Limitation, may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its `rigour , when the `statute , so prescribed and that the `Court , has `no power , to `extend the period of Limitation , on `equitable grounds . 89. In the instant case, on hand, the `Impugned Order , in CP (IB) No. 205 / 7 / HDB / 2021 (filed under Section 7 of the I B Code, 2016, by the Appellant / Petitioner / Ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a Copy Application , seeking the said `Certified Copy (`Paid Copy ) of the `Impugned Order , upon pronouncement of the `Order , is undoubtedly, a primordial requirement, in complying with the Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. 94. To put it precisely, for the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank (Financial Creditor), the `period of Limitation , commenced on 31.10.2023 (30.10.2023, the `date of Pronouncement of Impugned Order of the `Adjudicating Authority / `Tribunal in CP (IB) No. 205 / 7 / HDB / 2021 and the `30 days period , ended on 29.11.2023. Indeed, the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank (Financial Creditor), has failed to file the instant `Appeal , in terms of Rule 22 (2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, before the lapse of `Limitation Period . Besides these, the Petitioner / Appellant / Bank (Financial Creditor), has not filed / moved an `Application , to `Exempt it, from fulfilling with any of the requirement of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, and not obtained any `Exemption Orders , from this `Tribunal . 95. At this juncture, this `Tribunal , relevantly points out that in the Order dated 22.04.2024 of this `Tribunal , in the matter of M/s. White hand Services v. RD Build tech Developers (Karnatak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e , presupposes `no negligence or `inaction , on the Applicant / Petitioner s part, to whom, want of `Bona fide , is `Imputable . Also that, it is not the `Law that when an `Application , seeking `Condonation of Delay , is filed by the `Petitioner / Appellant / Bank or `Any Authority or by the `State , that the `Tribunal , must invariably `Condone the Delay irrespective whether, a `Sufficient Cause , is `exhibited or `not . 101. As far as the present case is concerned, this `Tribunal , is of the considered opinion that Rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, is to be read with, in conjunction, with Rule 2 (9) (a) of NCLT Rules, 2016, whereby, it is mentioned that `Certified , as provided in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or (b) Certified, as provided in Section 6 of the Information Technology Act or (c) Certified Copy issued by the Registrar of Companies, under the Act. 102. It is lucidly made clear by this `Tribunal , obtaining of `Free of Cost Copy , is only the concern of the particular `person or `party , to the effect that an `Order , was passed either in his favour or against him / it and as a `Stakeholder / `Litigant , he / it, is to pursue, hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RISDICTION) IA No. 158 / 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 53 of 2024 State Bank of India Versus India Power Corporation Ltd. For the Petitioner : Mr. PH. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Advocate Appellant For M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Senior Advocate For Ms. Deepika Murali Ms. Nivea, Advocates ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) [ Per : Jatindranath Swain , Member ( Technical ) ] 1) I have had the opportunity to go through the Judgment of my Learned Brother Judicial Member Justice M. Venugopal (J) and with great respect and all humility at my command, I beg to differ with the conclusions arrived by him as under : - (a) filing of a paid-for certified copy of the Impugned Order is a primordial requirement in complying with Rule 22(2) of NCLAT Rules, 2016; (b) filing of the instant Appeal with the aid of free of cost copy of the impugned order cannot be a substitute for every appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy (paid copy) of the impugned order and hence the appeal is per se not maintainable and (c) the reasons narrated for delay do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 3 days. 2) I shall come straight to the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(c) above, it is held that Rule 22(2) of NCLAT Rules 2016 mandates the Certified Copy of the Order to be appealed against to accompany the Appeal. As per Rule 50 of NCLT Rules, Certified Copy can be obtained either by applying with payment of fees or it can be obtained free of cost by litigating parties. Both are certified by NCLT and hence no distinction can be made between them in terms of merit. Rule 2(9) of NCLT Rules, 2016 states (9) certified means in relation to a copy of a document as hereunder (a) certified as provided in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act lays down what a Certified Copy of public document should be in following words: Section 76 Certified copy of Public Documents. Every Public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written, at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o obtain a Certified Copy. However, it has to be admitted that he has appealed with a perfectly valid Certified Copy (issued free of cost) and therefore there will not be any need for seeking exemption under Rule 14 of NCLAT Rules as contended by Respondent. The litmus test of applying for Certified Copy within the limitation period will come into operation when he seeks benefit under section 12(2) of Limitation Act. Here such case has not arisen; the Appellant has merely prayed for condonation of 2 days (3 days as per Registry s Computation) with reasons which needs to be assessed as to whether they constitute sufficient cause . 7) As regards to 3(d) above, it is seen that there is a delay of 3 days over and above the 30 days period in filing the Appeal. The Appellant has cited reasons such as difficulty in contacting counsels because of occurrence of major festivals (including Diwali) and the voluminous nature of work in form of the Appeal Paper Book containing 3985 pages in 16 volumes which led to a delay of 3 days beyond 30 days in filing the appeal. In my opinion, this is a sufficient cause for condoning this delay of 3 days as per the principles laid down by Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
