2000 (3) TMI 931 - HC - Companies Law

Appeal Dismissed for Late Filing & Lack of Certified Copy. Importance of Timely & Proper Documentation

Sree Rayalaseema Paper Mills Ltd. Versus Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction

Sree Rayalaseema Paper Mills Ltd. Versus Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction - [2000] 26 SCL 129 (AP) Issues Involved:1. Validity of the appeal filed by respondents 3 to 15 against the BIFR order.2. Compliance with the requirement to file a certified copy of the order with the appeal.3. Calculation of the limitation period for filing the appeal.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of the Appeal Filed by Respondents 3 to 15The writ petition challenges the orders of the appellate authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR), New Delhi, dated 16-12-1999 and 20-1-2000, which admitted Appeal No. 166 of 1999 and granted a stay. The petitioner contends that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and without a certified copy of the BIFR order, rendering it invalid.Issue 2: Compliance with the Requirement to File a Certified Copy of the Order with the AppealSection 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, mandates that an appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date on which a certified copy of the order is issued. The procedure for filing appeals before AAIFR, as prescribed under section 13 of the Act, requires the submission of a certified copy of the order appealed against. The petitioner argued that respondents 3 to 15 did not apply for a certified copy and instead used a copy received in the normal course, misleading the appellate authority into believing it was a certified copy.Issue 3: Calculation of the Limitation Period for Filing the AppealThe petitioner contended that the limitation period starts from the date the order is pronounced in open court, not from the date of receiving the order in the normal course. The appellate authority's decision to treat the copy received on 21-9-1999 as a certified copy and consider the appeal filed on 4-11-1999 within the limitation period was challenged. The petitioner emphasized that the appeal should have been filed within 45 days of obtaining a certified copy, and any delay beyond 60 days could not be condoned under section 25 of the Act.Court's Findings:1. Mandatory Requirement for Certified Copy: The court held that section 25(1) of the Act, read with the prescribed procedure, mandates the filing of an appeal with a certified copy of the order. The appellate authority's acceptance of the appeal without a certified copy was erroneous.2. Limitation Period: The court concluded that the limitation period for filing the appeal starts from the date of issuance of the certified copy of the order, not from the date of receipt in the normal course. The respondents' failure to apply for a certified copy immediately after the order's pronouncement and their reliance on a non-certified copy were deemed non-compliant with the statutory requirements.3. Press Note Compliance: The court referred to a Press Note issued by the AAIFR, which clarified that parties intending to file an appeal should apply for a certified copy immediately after the order is passed and not wait for its receipt through postal channels. The respondents' actions were found to be contrary to this directive.4. Judicial Precedents: The court cited the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in *Girdharlal M. Pittie v. Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction* AIR 1988 Delhi 400, which emphasized strict adherence to the limitation period and the necessity of filing a certified copy of the order.Conclusion:The court concluded that the appeal filed by respondents 3 to 15 was barred by limitation and non-compliant with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the orders dated 16-12-1999 and 20-1-2000 passed by the appellate authority were quashed. The writ petition was allowed, and no order as to costs was made.