Dismissal of Delay Condonation Application & Rejection of Memo of Appeal Exceeding Time Limit

The Delay Condonation Application was dismissed, and the Memo of Appeal was rejected as the delay in filing the appeal exceeded the 15-day limit specified in Section 61(2) of the IBC. The Court emphasized the importance of timely filing of appeals under the IBC, stating that the limitation period starts when the order is pronounced, and delays in obtaining certified copies do not excuse late filings. The judgment highlighted the mandatory requirement of a certified copy for appeals to the NCLAT and the need for parties to adhere to statutory timelines to maintain the timely framework of the insolvency process.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing the Appeal, Condonation of delay application, Interpretation of limitation period for proceedings under IBC, Requirement of certified copy for appeal to NCLAT.

Delay in filing the Appeal:
The appeal was filed against the Order dated 06th July, 2022, with a delay in filing. The Appellant received a free certified copy of the Impugned Order on 27th July, 2022, and the appeal was filed within one month of receiving the order. The Respondent rightly relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "V Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd." [(2022) 2 SCC 244], which emphasized the importance of timely filing of appeals under the IBC. The Court noted that the limitation for filing the appeal begins when the order is pronounced, and the mere receipt of a certified copy does not stop the running of the limitation period. The Court's jurisdiction to condone the delay is limited to 15 days under Section 61(2) proviso. As the delay in this case exceeded 15 days, the Delay Condonation Application was dismissed, and the Memo of Appeal was rejected.

Condonation of delay application:
An application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 3522 of 2022) was filed along with an Additional Affidavit. The Appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to receiving the certified copy of the Impugned Order on 27th July, 2022. However, based on the legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Court held that the delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned beyond the 15-day limit specified in Section 61(2) of the IBC. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Condonation of Delay Application.

Interpretation of limitation period for proceedings under IBC:
The judgment referred to the interpretation of the limitation period for proceedings under the IBC as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "V Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd." The Supreme Court emphasized the need for aggrieved parties to exercise due diligence in obtaining certified copies of orders they seek to challenge. The Court highlighted that the limitation for filing appeals under the IBC starts running from the date the order is pronounced, and delays in obtaining certified copies do not excuse late filings. The Court underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory timelines set forth in the IBC to maintain the timely framework of the insolvency process.

Requirement of certified copy for appeal to NCLAT:
The judgment also addressed the mandatory requirement of a certified copy for appeals to the NCLAT against orders passed under the IBC. It referenced the provisions of the IBC, Companies Act, and NCLAT Rules to emphasize that aggrieved parties must apply for certified copies promptly upon the pronouncement of the order they intend to challenge. Failure to obtain certified copies expeditiously does not extend the limitation period for filing appeals. The Court stressed that procedural rules cannot be manipulated to circumvent the substantive objectives of the IBC, which are crucial for the economic well-being of the nation.

---