9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon ble Apex Court commenced from 15.03.2020, and the ratio of the said Judgment cannot be extended to be made applicable in the instant Appeal to the Appellant, because the mandatory period of 30 days for applying for the Certified Copy of the Impugned Order of 31.01.2020 expired much before the short date of the extended period of limitation laid down by the Judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the Suo Motu proceedings [ 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER ], due to Covid-19 situation, which was made effective with effect from 15.03.2020. When the Appellant himself has failed to comply with the first part of the intention of legislature of procuring the Certified Copy of the Judgment in order to enable him to file an Appeal as an Aggrieved Person in the light of the provisions contained under Rule 22 and if the cut off period of procuring of the Certified Copy, which was a condition precedent, has expired much prior to the benefit of limitation extended by the Hon ble Apex Court, the Appellant cannot contend that, he would be entitled for the benefit of limitation for the purposes of condonation of delay of about 451 days and that too, when according to his own records, the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.01.2020, it was apparently much beyond the period prescribed under Sec. 61 to be read with Sub Section 2, and even its proviso. 5. When later on, the Appeal was taken up to be argued on merits, after the exchange of pleadings and furnishing of Notes of Submissions, it is then only, at that stage that, the Appellant had preferred a Condone Delay Application, by filing the same before the Registry initially bearing Diary No. 247 dated 04.08.2021, which was subsequently re-numbered as regular IA No. 361 / 2021, which is listed today for Orders. 6. The said Condone Delay Application is being opposed by the Respondents by filing their objection. 7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant had simpliciter come up with the case that, since the Impugned Judgment happens to be of 31.01.2020, if the period of Limitation is determined in the light of the provisions contained under Section 61 of I B Code, 2016, 30 days period would be expiring on 01.03.2020 and upon the extension of period of Limitation for the purposes of preferring of an Appeal under Sec. 61, which could be extended by 15 days, by the Appellate Tribunal, as contemplated under the proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 61, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the period of limitation of all the proceedings either under the general law or under special laws, would stand extended with effect from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. 11. The relevant observation, as it has been made in Para 3 of the Judgment in Suo Motu Writ (C) No. 3 / 2020 is extracted hereunder:- 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 12. Similarly, the relevant observation as made in Para 5 of Judgment dated 10.01.2022 in MA No. 21 / 2022 in Suo Motu Writ (C) No. 3 / 2020 is extracted hereunder: 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned Counsel and the impact of surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by the litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een dealt with by the Hon ble Apex Court in the matters of `Sagufa Ahmed . He has contended that in the said Judgment of Sagufa Ahmed Ors. Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. Ors., as decided on 18.09.2020, the Hon ble Apex Court has observed that the extended period of limitation under the Statute, if it was falling well within the period of limitation as it stood, extended by Para 3 of the Judgment of Suo Motu Writ Petition by the Hon ble Apex Court, due to Covid-19, the same would be condoned in the light of the aforesaid ratio. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:- 17. But we do not think that the appellants can take refuge under the above order in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 343] . What was extended by the above order [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 343] of this Court was only the period of limitation and not the period up to which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. The above order [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 : 2020 SCC OnLine S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of this Act. Section 2(j) of the 1963 Act when read in the context of Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act, it becomes amply clear that the prescribed period for making an application for setting aside arbitral award is three months. The period of 30 days mentioned in proviso that follows sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is not the period of limitation and, therefore, not prescribed period for the purposes of making the application for setting aside the arbitral award. The period of 30 days beyond three months which the court may extend on sufficient cause being shown under the proviso appended to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act being not the period of limitation or, in other words, prescribed period , in our opinion, Section 4 of the 1963 Act is not, at all, attracted to the facts of the present case. 15. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has further referred to the Judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 6411 - 6418 of 2023, arising out of SLP (C) No. 4789 4796 of Aditya Khaitan Ors Vs. IL FS Financial Services Limited, to support his contention. In particular, he has referred to the excerpts of Sagufa Ahmed to contend that the extended period under the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021. 2.2 In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 2.3 The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 2.4 The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state. Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alid ground to refuse to entertain the same. (2) Every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. (emphasis supplied) Therefore, it cannot be said that the parties can automatically dispense with their obligation to apply for and obtain a certified copy for filing an appeal. Any delay in receipt of a certified copy, once an application has been filed, has been envisaged by the legislature and duly excluded to not cause any prejudice to a litigant's right to appeal. 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 cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as below. 20. The Respondent in his Reply has raised threefold objections: (i) That the Appellant would not be entitled for the benefit of the ratio laid down in the matters of Sagufa Ahmed s Judgment or the Judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court as rendered in the Suo Motu Writ Petition for the reason being that; As per the records, the Appellant had for the first time moved an Application for obtaining the Certified Copy of the Judgment only on 30.04.2021. What he intends to submit that as per Para 29 of V. Nagarajan s Case (Supra), since the Appellant has applied for the Certified Copy only on 30.04.2021, he will not be entitled for the benefit of extension of Limitation period, because of the fact that according to Para 29 of V. Nagarajan s case (Supra), a party cannot automatically dispense with the obligation to apply for and obtain a Certified Copy of the Impugned Judgment, which should have been applied within the statutory period of limitation i.e. 30 days i.e. by 01.03.2020 in the instant case. Since, the Appellant had applied for obtaining the copy of the Impugned Judgment dated 31.01.2020, only on 30.04.2021, he is not entitled for grant of benefit of extension of Limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of Constitution of CoC and hence, he cannot take a plea that, he was not a party to the proceedings and therefore, he did not have the knowledge and accordingly, would be entitled for extension of the period of limitation prescribed under the Statute, in the light of the aforesaid Judgments of Sagufa Ahmed and Aditya Khaitan and also the Suo Motu Writ Petition of the Hon ble Apex Court (Supra). 21. We are of the view that the basic objective of extension of the period of limitation, even to a Person or a Body, who is not a party to the proceedings, the same could only be extended subject to the condition that, even if they did not had the knowledge of the proceedings, be it in whatsoever capacity. Since the Appellant in the present case is a member of the CoC, he was with conscious knowledge of the fact that the CIRP proceedings are in progress and under these peculiar situation, the knowledge of the Judgment dated 31.01.2020, would be deemed to be available with the Appellant from the date of the Judgment itself and since not having applied for obtaining the Certified Copy of the Judgment dated 31.01.2020, till 30.04.2021, the Appeal would be barred by limitation, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for a Certified Copy of the Judgment within the period of limitation prescribed under the Statute would not be sustainable, for the reason being that the definition of Party , includes the word person preferring an appeal , it does not classify or sub-classify the party to the proceedings. Thus, the Appellant cannot be excluded from the implications of Para 29, as it has been determined in the Judgment of V. Nagarajan (Supra), mandating for applying for the Certified Copy within the initial 30 days of period of Limitation, under Section 61 (1) of the I B Code, 2016. 25. There is another reason as to why the argument extended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in the context of the definition of party and the interpretation given to it for the purposes of being included within the zone of consideration for the grant of extension of limitation for the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, in the light of the Judgment of Suo Motu proceedings of the Hon ble Apex Court, on the pretext that, since the Appeal was preferred on 28.05.2021, he would be entitled for the benefit of limitation is not acceptable, because, despite having concrete knowledge of proceedings, the Certified Cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings, because, the Appellate provision, where it includes the word person aggrieved , it would be wide enough expanded to include a party to the proceedings, as well as any other person other than, the party to the proceedings who can file an Appeal. 31. For the aforesaid purpose, we have already dealt with the definition of Party as given under the NCLT rules, but for better elucidation in its literal meaning as per Law Lexicon 6th Edition, the word party means `a person including a permanent establishment, if any, which participates or takes part in an arrangement or a litigation; that a party means who prefers or contest a judicial proceeding on merits, which would be inclusive of the Respondents too. 32. In other words, it could be said that the word party means a `person who files an application or who prefers the appeal before the Tribunal, which will include the Respondent too and to such an application or an appeal as the case may be, they would be treated as to be a party in contest to the knowledge of the proceeding which has been drawn against them, before any Court or Tribunal. The aforesaid interpretation of the word party has been dealt with in the Judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch an execution court or an appellate court could not ordinarily deal with, and the word party is not used in that section in the sense party to the suit , the expression ordinarily found in other parts of the Code dealing with execution matters, but must mean party to the application. It so happens that in this particular case the matters arising out of the final decree of the Privy Council had been already on more than two occasions before this Court, although not always as between the identical parties now before us. We have decided to follow the view taken by this Court in the same or cognate matters arising out of this Privy Council decree. That is to say, firstly, this Court has already held that Damodar Das, although not a party to the Privy Council decree, was bound to give up possession and that an application under section 144 was properly made against him. We agree. That disposes of the second point decided in his favour by the lower court, Mr. Justice STUART, in a previous matter which came before him by way of first appeal in May of last year (the case is Madhusudan Das v. Birj Lal [(1921) 61 Indian Cases, 806.] , held that the application was one justified by the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatute, the right is invariably confined to a person aggrieved or a person who claims to be aggrieved. The meaning of the words a person aggrieved may vary according to the context of the statute. One of the meanings is that a person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him. Normally, one is required to establish that one has been denied or deprived of something to which one is legally entitled in order to make one a person aggrieved . Again, a person is aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on him. The meaning of the words a person aggrieved is sometimes given a restricted meaning in certain statutes which provide remedies for the protection of private legal rights. The restricted meaning requires denial or deprivation of legal rights. A more liberal approach is required in the background of statutes which do not deal with property rights but deal with professional conduct and morality. The role of the Bar Council under the Advocates Act is comparable to the role of a guardian in professional ethics. The words persons aggrieved in Sections 37 and 38 of the Act are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restricted interpreta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor of Customs under Section 128, as it stood immediately before the appointed day, or (b) the Collector (Appeals) under Section 128-A, is not legal or proper, direct the proper officer to appeal on his behalf to the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Customs and Excise Revenues Appellate Tribunal established under Section 3 of the Customs and Excise Revenues Appellate Tribunal Act, 1986, against such order. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be filed within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the Collector of Customs, or as the case may be, the other party preferring the appeal. Section 129-D(1) of the Act also deserves to be noted at this stage. It reads as under: 129-D. Powers of Board or Collector of Customs to pass certain orders. (1) The Board may, of its own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which a Collector of Customs as an adjudicating authority has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such Collector to apply to the Appellate Tribunal or, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an aggrieved person who can prefer an appeal under Section 129-A(1) of the Act. So far as departmental authorities themselves are concerned including the Collector of Customs no direct right of appeal is conferred on the Collector to prefer appeal against his own order before the CEGAT. However there is sufficient safeguard made available to the Revenue by the Act for placing in challenge erroneous orders of adjudication as passed by the Collector of Customs by moving the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 129-D(1) for a direction to the Collector to apply to the CEGAT for determination of such point arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Board of Revenue in this connection. Similarly a statutory remedy is provided to the Collector of Customs in connection with orders of the Appellate Collector of Customs passed immediately before the appointed day and also in connection with the orders passed by the Collector of Customs (sic Appeals) under Section 128-A, to direct proper officer to appeal on his behalf as laid down by Section 129-A(2). Revisional powers are also conferred on the Central Board of Excise and Customs against the orders of Colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority in Section 129-A(1). But in order to earn a locus standi as person aggrieved other than the arraigned party before the Collector of Customs as an adjudicating authority it must be shown that such a person aggrieved being third party has a direct legal interest in the goods involved in the adjudication process. It cannot be a general public interest or interest of a business rival as is being projected by the contesting respondents before us. In this connection we may refer to a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai, Advocate General of Maharashtra [(1970) 2 SCC 484] . The question before the Constitution Bench in that case was as to whether the Advocate General of the High Court who was to be issued a notice in disciplinary proceedings by the Bar Council as per the provisions of Section 35(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 had locus standi to prefer an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority under Section 37 of the Advocates Act before the Bar Council of India. A majority of the Constitution Bench took the view that the Advocate General had no such locus standi. He could not be said to be a person aggrieve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person aggrieved do not really mean a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made. A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something. Generally, the person aggrieved would be the person who is materially affected by the impugned action or whose rights are materially affected by the Impugned Order, who could prefer an Appeal under Sec. 61 of the Code. 35. The expression party and expression person aggrieved are two different expressions; the word party will not be inclusive of the term person aggrieved as it would be confined to the party in case before a Court. On the other hand, the word person aggrieved is wide enough to include within it a party to the proceedings or any other person who is likely to be affected by a decision to be rendered in a matter prejudicial to him and it is irrespective of a definite separate identity of a person or group of persons who sustains injury, because of a legal adjudication. The said principl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt had participated in the meetings of the Committee of Creditors and therefore, he is a party to the proceedings is not correct and that, for the aforesaid purpose, the said person attending meetings of CoC cannot be termed as to be a person aggrieved or a party , unless the parameters prescribed under Section 21 (2) of the I B Code, 2016, which describes the constitution of Committee of Creditors are satisfied. The definition of Committee of Creditors , is extracted hereunder:- 21. Committee of creditors. (1) The interim resolution professional shall after collation of all claims received against the corporate debtor and determination of the financial position of the corporate debtor, constitute a committee of creditors. (2) The committee of creditors shall comprise all financial creditors of the corporate debtor: Provided that a [financial creditor or the authorised representative of the financial creditor referred to in sub-section (6) or sub-section (6-A) or sub-section (5) of Section 24, if it is a related party of the corporate debtor,] shall not have any right of representation, participation or voting in a meeting of the committee of creditors: [Provided further that the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agent shall act on behalf of such financial creditors; (b) is owed to a class of creditors exceeding the number as may be specified, other than the creditors covered under clause (a) or sub-section (6), the interim resolution professional shall make an application to the Adjudicating Authority along with the list of all financial creditors, containing the name of an insolvency professional, other than the interim resolution professional, to act as their authorised representative who shall be appointed by the Adjudicating Authority prior to the first meeting of the committee of creditors; (c) is represented by a guardian, executor or administrator, such person shall act as authorised representative on behalf of such financial creditors, and such authorised representative under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) shall attend the meetings of the committee of creditors, and vote on behalf of each financial creditor to the extent of his voting share. (6-B) The remuneration payable to the authorised representative (i) under clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (6-A), if any, shall be as per the terms of the financial debt or the relevant documentation; and (ii) under clause (b) of sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereunder: Section 24 (3) (c): (3) The resolution professional shall give notice of each meeting of the committee of creditors to (c) operational creditors or their representatives if the amount of their aggregate dues is not less than ten per cent. of the debt. What he submits that as an Operational Creditor, notice was required to be served on him and in the absence of any notice on record, given by the Resolution Professional, of the meetings of Committee of Creditors, the knowledge of proceeding cannot be derived, in the absence of condition prescribed is satisfied. He submits that Operational Creditors or their representatives, even if they participate in the meeting, cannot be treated as to be a party to the proceedings and the mere participation in the meeting will not suffice the purpose for the purposes of attributing knowledge of the proceedings to the Appellant. 39. In response thereto, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has vehemently denied that the logic assigned by the Appellant s Counsel, and has submitted that contrary to the assertion of the Appellant, majority of the email communications, which he has placed on record along with the Counter Affidavit, pertaini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of 30 days for the purposes of preferring of an Appeal for the purposes of deriving the benefit of limitation of the extended period of 15 days under the proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 61, so as to attract the benefit of Suo Motu Judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court. 41. As far as the aspect of knowledge is concerned, that was the aspect considered in the Judgment rendered by the Principal Bench of the NCLAT in IA No. 808 / 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (INS) No. 138 / 2024 Sumit Singh Basisth Anr. Vs. Sare Gurugram Pvt. Ltd. Anr., which was decided along with the other connected Appeals. In the aforesaid cases, lack of knowledge was sought to be taken as to be a ground for seeking a condonation of delay and this had been deprecated by the Principal Bench in the aforesaid Judgment as decided on 22.03.2024, wherein in Para Nos. 17 23, the Principal Bench has laid down the following principles: 17. In the present case as noticed above, the Impugned Order dated 24th April, 2023 was pronounced on 24th April, 2023 which is mentioned in the Impugned Order itself when order is pronounced by the Court the pronouncement is for all concerned. We having already held that Hon'ble Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy of the order. When the power has been given to Court to extend the time or waive compliance of any rule, we have no doubt that the Appeal can be filed without applying a certified copy of the orders, in the facts and situation of a particular case. At present, all orders are uploaded on website of the Adjudicating Authority and this Tribunal and litigants often file the Appeal by relying on uploaded copy on the website. We, thus, are of the view that Appeal filed without applying for a certified copy of the order, cannot be dismissed on this ground that Appellant has not applied for certified copy of the order. When an Applicant does not apply for a certified copy of the order within the limitation prescribed, he is not entitled to seek any exclusion under Section 12 of the Limitation Act and it is the Applicant, who has to comply the limitation prescribed for filing an Appeal, but the mere fact that he has not applied for certified copy of the order, cannot be a ground for rejecting the Appeal. Owing to the aforesaid, the Judgment of Sumit Singh Basisth and Innovators Cleantech (Supra), what could be culled out is that, that a person who is preferring an Appeal under Section 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been placed by the Appellant, as Annexure D (Page 69), which shows that the aforesaid communication has originated from the Appellant s mail dated 18.06.2019, which automatically leads to an unflinching inference that, owing to the fact that the gmail id as given in the aforesaid communication was that of the Appellant, presumption would be that, he had the knowledge of the proceedings and which further stands fortified by the gmail communication of 02.01.2020 as placed on record with the Counter Affidavit of the Respondent No. 2, which yet again refers to the gmail id of the Appellant, showing that, the aforesaid communication was well within the knowledge of the Appellant and hence, he cannot be permitted to take the benefit of the claim that he was not having the knowledge of the proceedings and hence, he would be entitled for grant of the benefit of the extended period of limitation. Further as the Appellant, as apparent from the documents on record, has failed to establish that he had applied for the Certified Copy within the prescribed period of limitation and evidently, he himself has applied for procuring the same on 30.04.2021 as can be seen from the Certified Copy and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndered by the Principal Bench as reported in 2023 SCC Online NCLAT 1416 in the matters of Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation V. Reliance Infratech Ltd. Anr., while making reference to the impact of V. Nagarajan s Judgment as reported in 2022 (2) SCC 244, the Principal Bench of NCLAT has observed in Para 4 of the Judgment, which is extracted hereunder: 4. Timelines are of great significance in the I B Code. The filing of the Appeal within 30 days from the date of order is for all concerned who feel aggrieved by the order. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the Appellant had no knowledge when order was passed, therefore, they could not file appeal, hence, limitation shall only begin on 31.07.2023 when they came to know about the order. In event, such contention is accepted, the resolution under the Code will become indefinite and uncertain, that is why timelines prescribed are important and for filing an appeal prescribed period is 30 days from the date of order, hence, limitation shall commence from the date when order is passed and shall not depend on the date when Appellant came to know of the order. On that, the date of knowledge of the proceedings, cannot be take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of limitation, either under the proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 61 of the Code or under the Judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court, he ought to have applied for the Certified Copy within the period of limitation and since, the period of limitation for procuring the Certified Copy of the Order had expired on 01.03.2020, much prior to 15.03.2020, i.e. the start of extended period of limitation as dictated by the Hon ble Apex Court, the Appellant would not be entitled for the grant of benefit of limitation merely because of the fact that the outer limit of 45 days, including 15 days of extension under proviso to Section 61(2), was yet to expire when the extended period of limitation as per the Judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court, came into being with effect from 15.03.2020. (e) Since the record itself reveals that the Appellant has for the first time applied for the Certified Copy on 30.04.2021, he will not be entitled for the benefit of limitation since the Application for the Certified Copy itself was filed much beyond the Limitation period under Section 61 (1) of the I B Code, 2016. 47. Further, the argument extended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant from the perspective t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
