9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that for securing those Certified Copies by enacting that 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, whenever such officer is authorised by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. As far as the present case is concerned, the delay of 12 days has computed by the 'Petitioner/Appellant', in her 'Application', from the date of receipt of 'free copy' on 07.12.2022 cannot be accepted and as per Rule 150 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, the 'Pronouncement date' can only be the date on which the 'order' was pronounced on 24.11.2022 by the 'Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal'. If calculated from the date on which the instant 'Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;Tribunal' shall be given to the parties. As such, it is contended on behalf of the 'Petitioner/Appellant', that the Provision of a 'certified copy of every order', passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, is contemplated as per NCLT Rules, 2016, being part of the 'pronouncement of order'. 6. The Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner/Appellant' points out that the in the instant case, the main CP(IB) No.45/7AMR/2020, the 'Impugned Order' was pronounced in 'open court' by the 'Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal' on 24.11.2022. However, the 'certified copy' of the 'order' was only prepared and despatched to the parties on 02.12.2022. As a matter of fact, the 'free cost' 'certified copy of the Order' was received at the 'Office of the Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant' on 07.12.2022. As such, Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, makes it quite clear that 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 was pronounced and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Tribunal'. 11. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner/Appellant' refers to Rule 2(9)(a) of the National Company Law Tribunal 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, 2000; or (c) certified copy issued by the Registrar of Companies under the Act; 12. Furthermore, the Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner/Appellant' falls back upon the definition as per Section 2(10) of NCLT Rules, 2016 under the caption Certified by Tribunal means in relation to a copy of a document certified to be a true copy issued by the 'Registry' or of a 'Bench/Tribunal' under its hand and seal and as provided in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [1 of 1872]. 13. The Learned Counsel for the 'Petitioner/Appellant', refers to the definition in Section 2(j) of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules which provides that All other words and expressions used in these rules but not defined herein and defined in the Act and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /Appellant' is not entitled to derive the benefits of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 18. The Learned Counsel for the 'Respondent' refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Nagarajan v SKS ISPAT and Power Limited and others reported in 2021 : INSC : 663 : (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 244, wherein, at paragraph 31 32, it was held that: 31 The import of Section 12 of the Limitation Act and its Explanation is to assign the responsibility of applying for a certified copy of the order on a party. A person wishing to file an appeal is expected to file an application for a certified copy 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 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 15-3-2020. In this case, owing to the specific language of Sections 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 limitation under Section 61(2) IBC. The construction of the law does not import the absurdity the appellant alleges of an impossible act of filing an appeal against an order which was uploaded on 12-3-2020. However, the mandate of the law is to impose an obligation on the appellant to apply for a certified copy once the order was pronounced by NCLT on 31-12-2019 Cethar Ltd. (Resolution Professional) v. SKS Ispat Power Ltd. MA No. 906/IB/2019 in CA No.38/IB/2018, order dated 31-12-2019 (NCLT), by virtue of Section 61(2) IBC read with Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules. In the event the appellant was correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days, being the outer limit, under the Code. In the instant case, the delay of 30 + 26 days comes to 56 days, which this 'Appellate Tribunal' is not empowered under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to condone the same. 21. The other contention on behalf of the 'Respondent, is that the 'Petitioner/Appellant' has produced a 'Medical Certificate' from a 'Registered Medical Practitioner', certifying her 'illness and indisposition' dated 17.01.2023 (as mentioned in paragraph 6 and 7 of the 'Application', although genuine), the same is 'not a ground' for preferring an 'Appeal', beyond the prescribed period as per Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 22. The Learned Counsel for the 'Respondent' cites the Judgment of this 'Appellate Tribunal', in Chanderpati v. Soni Realtors Private Limited Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) 691 of 2023 wherein at paragraph 59 it is observed as under:- Thus the ratio of all the four judgments is that (i) the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of pronouncement of the order in the cases covered by the code (ii) It is mandatory at annex the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;, is that on behalf of the 'Petitioner/Appellant', as per Section 14 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, 'No Application', seeking permission from this 'Appellate Tribunal' for exemption to file 'Certified Copy' of the 'Impugned Order', is filed by the 'Petitioner/Appellant' before this 'Tribunal'. 26. This 'Tribunal' has given anxious instruction to the arguments and contentions advanced on both sides and noticed the same in a meticulous manner. 27. It is to be borne in mind that Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not prescribe any particular form of 'Certified Copy', as per decision in Thatha v Paru reported in 1986 Kerala at page 196. 28. A provision is made in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that for securing those 'Certified Copies' by enacting that 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 documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould in turn might be inserting the provision to the statue, which is not permissible. From the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Dunar Foods Ltd. (Resolution Professional) reported in {(2022)11 SCC 761} at page 773 wherein at paragraph 14, it is quite clear that 'Courts' have no 'jurisdiction' and /or 'Authority' to carve out any 'exception' and further, in the aforesaid judgment, it is clearly mentioned that if the 'courts' have carve out an exception, it would amount to legislate which in turn might be inserting the provisions of the statute, which is clearly 'not permissible in Law'. 32. A mere running of the 'eye over the rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 clearly points out that the 'Application' of the 'Petitioner/Appellant' to comply with a certified copy by paying the 'schedule of fees' 'cannot be dispensed with' and at best, the sending of the 'certified copy' of 'final order' by the authorities concerned, 'Free of Cost', is an obligation caused upon the 'Office of the Registr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;, 'seeking exemption to file 'certified copy' of 'Impugned Order', before this 'Tribunal', the interference that can be drawn from the clear-cut facts in the present case is that, the instant 'Appeal' Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.23 of 2024 (Condone Delay Application) is filed beyond the 'statutory period' as envisaged under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 37. It is needless for this 'Tribunal' to point out that a 'Litigant', in a 'level of playing field' is to follow the 'Rules of the Game', in scrupulous and in a meticulous manner. However, harsh the Rule or 'Law' may be prevailing as on date, then a 'Duty' is enjoined upon this 'Appellate Tribunal' to comply with the same with all its vigour and vitality and this 'Tribunal' is 'not concerned with the consequences arising thereto'. 38. Looking at from any angle, the instant IA No.83 of 2024 in Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.23 of 2024 (Condone Delay Application) is 'devoid of merits' and it fail. 39. In fine, the IA No.83 of 2024 in Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 23 of 2024 is Dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
