Limitation for industrial revival appeals runs from communication of the certified copy, not an informal photocopy

An appeal under Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 had to be filed within 45 days from communication of the order to the aggrieved person, and Regulation 15 required service of a certified copy in the prescribed manner. Because the respondent was not a party before BIFR, a photocopy of the proceedings was not a statutory communication and the limitation period ran from receipt of the certified copy. The Court also noted that sanctioning waiver of interest and penalty without notice to the revenue raised natural justice concerns, and sustained the AAIFR's view on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the starting point of limitation for the appeal before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction was the date on which the respondent received a certified copy of the BIFR order, and whether the order sanctioning waiver of interest and penalty without notice to the revenue suffered from violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The appeal under Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 had to be filed within forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order was issued to the aggrieved person, and the order had to be communicated in the manner prescribed by Regulation 15 of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Regulations, 1987. The respondent was not a party before BIFR, the certified copy was not duly communicated to it, and the photocopy of the proceedings earlier forwarded by the petitioner was not the statutory certified copy. The Court distinguished the cited authorities on facts and accepted that the absence of proper communication and hearing before granting waiver of interest and penalty amounted to a violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The limitation period commenced from the receipt of the certified copy, the AAIFR's view on limitation was sustained, and the challenge to the order sanctioning the scheme failed.

---