9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loaded on the website. Although the Appellant s case is that till 20.02.2024 the order was not uploaded. Appellant has also along with the appeal brought on record the screenshot but in the present case, there is no dispute to the fact that by e- mail dated 25.01.2024, liquidator has informed the Appellant about the order dated 22.11.2023. Thus, the Appellant cannot claim that limitation will not begin at least from 25.01.2024 when the order was communicated by the liquidator to him. The law indicate that the expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh vs. Union of India and Anr. [ 2023 (11) TMI 814 - SUPREME COURT] has held that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. In the above case, Single Judge of the High Court has allowed Section 5 application filed by the Union of India and condoned the delay of 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia) Limited and Ors.- 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1663 to submit that the order is not pronounced in the court, limitation shall not commence from the date which was fixed for hearing of the application. 4. Counsel for the Respondent in the reply refuting the submissions of the Appellant contends that the case was listed for hearing on 22.11.2023 and Counsel for the Appellant/ Applicant was also present on 22.11.2023. There was no attempt on behalf of the Appellant to apply certified copy of the order. In the Reply, the Respondent does not dispute that the impugned order was not pronounced on 22.11.2023 and only arguments were concluded. It is useful to notice paragraph 3.5.5 of the rejoinder to the reply, which is as follows:- 3.5.5 . The contents of paragraph 5.5 and 5.6 are wrong and denied. The impugned judgment dated 22.11.2023 was not pronounced in open court and on 22.11.2023 only the arguments were concluded. Even the cause list of Ld. NCLT for 22.11.2023 clearly reflects that the I.A. no. 4434 of 2023 was listed on 22.11.2023 for hearing. 5 .It is submitted that the Appellant was obliged to apply certified copy of the order and cannot take the plea that since order was not known, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the same as the date of pronouncement. To avoid situations such as these, in cases where the matter has been heard on a particular day but the order is pronounced on a later date, the NCLT must refrain from affixing the date of hearing on the order. Such an approach would be a violation of the NCLT Rules, which create a distinction between hearing and pronouncement and do not allow the NCLT to dispense with the requirement of pronouncement. 21 .In view of the above, the period of limitation began to run on 30 May 2023. The 30- day limitation period provided in Section 61(2) of the IBC concluded on 29 June 2023. Though the appeal was filed beyond the period of thirty days, it was within the condonable period of fifteen days. We are of the considered view that the appeal should be restored to the NCLAT for reconsidering whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay beyond thirty days. To facilitate this, the impugned order of the NCLAT declining to condone the delay is set aside and the proceedings are restored to the file of the NCLAT. We are not inclined to stay the CIRP at this stage. However, the NCLAT is directed to dispose of the appeal at the ear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the above case, delay of 467 days came to be condoned by the Trial Court which order was set aside by the High Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court agreed with the view of the High court that even the trial court found that delay has not been properly explained but still trial court has condoned the delay which was set aside by the High Court. 10. The next judgment relied by the Counsel for the Respondent is Sheo Raj Singh vs. Union of India and Anr.- (2023) 10 SCC 531 . The Hon ble Supreme Court in the above case has occasion to consider the precedents for condonation of delay as has been settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court. In paragraph 17, Hon ble Supreme Court referring to an earlier judgment in Collector (LA) vs. Katiji- (1987) 2 SCC 107 laid down following in paragraph 17:- 17. In Collector (LA) v. Katiji the relevant High Court did not condone the delay of 4 (four) days in presentation of an appeal by the Collector in a land acquisition matter for which the order rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was carried in appeal. This Court opined that legislature had conferred power under Section 5 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an explanation and an excuse . An explanation is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an explanation from an excuse . Although people tend to see explanation and excuse as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real. 32 .An excuse is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an excuse would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, b we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
