Limitation under insolvency law runs from pronouncement, with no benefit from a later certified copy or expired COVID extension.

Limitation for an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date of pronouncement of the order, and later supply of a certified copy does not postpone commencement unless the appellant acted with due diligence. The Supreme Court's COVID-19 suo motu extension applies only where limitation had not already expired before 15.03.2020; where the appeal period expired earlier, no benefit is available. Time can be excluded under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act only if the prior proceeding was pursued in good faith before a forum unable to entertain it for jurisdictional defect or a similar cause. On these principles, the appeal was treated as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether limitation for filing the appeal commenced only on 05.02.2021 when the certified copy was supplied free of cost; (ii) Whether the appellant could claim the benefit of the Supreme Court's suo motu extension of limitation; (iii) Whether the appellant was entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 on account of proceedings pending before the Bombay High Court.

Issue (i): Whether limitation for filing the appeal commenced only on 05.02.2021 when the certified copy was supplied free of cost?

Analysis: Limitation under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 runs from the date of pronouncement of the order, and the time taken for obtaining a certified copy is excluded only when the aggrieved party acts with due diligence. The appellant was already aware of the impugned order by 03.12.2019 and had stated its intention to challenge it. The later supply of a free certified copy did not postpone the start of limitation.

Conclusion: The plea that limitation began only on 05.02.2021 was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could claim the benefit of the Supreme Court's suo motu extension of limitation?

Analysis: The Supreme Court's COVID-19 related extension operated only where limitation had not already expired before 15.03.2020. Here, the 30-day period had expired on 10.12.2019, long before the suo motu order took effect.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the suo motu extension.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant was entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 on account of proceedings pending before the Bombay High Court?

Analysis: Section 14(2) applies only where the earlier proceeding was pursued in good faith in a forum unable to entertain it due to defect of jurisdiction or a cause of like nature. The writ proceeding before the Bombay High Court was not shown to suffer from any such jurisdictional defect, and therefore the statutory precondition for exclusion was absent.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14(2).

Final Conclusion: The appeal was held to be time-barred and no condonation or exclusion of limitation was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, limitation begins from the date of pronouncement of the order, and the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is available only where the earlier proceeding was bona fide but could not be entertained because of a jurisdictional defect or a similar cause.

---