Appeal dismissed for delay beyond 45 days under I & B Code, 2016. Time limits crucial.

The tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay as the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed 45-day period under the I & B Code, 2016. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the code's time limits, which override other laws.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Computation of Limitation Period
2. Application for Certified Copy of Order
3. Condonation of Delay
4. Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 to I & B Code, 2016
5. Jurisdiction of NCLAT to Condone Delay Beyond Statutory Period

Detailed Analysis:

1. Computation of Limitation Period:
The appellants argued that the appeal was filed on the 35th day, considering the computation of the limitation period, and not on the 46th day as claimed by the respondent. The impugned order dated 26.08.2022 was provided to the appellants on 15.09.2022, and they sought legal opinion and prepared the draft appeal thereafter. The appellants contended that the period from 05.09.2022 (date of application for certified copy) to 15.09.2022 (date on which the certified copy was provided) should be excluded from the limitation period as per Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. Application for Certified Copy of Order:
The appellants applied for the certified copy of the impugned order on 02.09.2022, which was received on 05.09.2022. They argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the non-availability of their advocate during the Dussehra holidays and the additional measures taken to draft the appeal from Delhi. The appeal was filed on 10.10.2022, along with an application seeking to condone the delay of five days.

3. Condonation of Delay:
The appellants cited various judgments to support their plea for condonation of delay, including V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Ors., and Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. They argued that the delay should be condoned as the period for obtaining the certified copy should be excluded from the limitation period.

4. Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 to I & B Code, 2016:
The respondent argued that the I & B Code, 2016, being a special code, overrides the Limitation Act, 1963. They contended that the appeal was filed on the 46th day, exceeding the permissible period of 30 days plus an additional 15 days for sufficient cause under the I & B Code, 2016. The respondent cited several judgments to support their argument, including V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Ors., Kalpraj Dharamshi & Anr. v. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited & Anr., and others.

5. Jurisdiction of NCLAT to Condone Delay Beyond Statutory Period:
The tribunal emphasized that the time limit prescribed under Section 61(2) of the I & B Code, 2016, is a legislative mandate and cannot be extended beyond 45 days (30 + 15 days). The tribunal referred to various judgments, including Exide Industries Ltd. v. Jitender Kumar Jain, Valency International Pte Ltd. v. Vasudevan & 2 Ors., and others, to highlight that the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the statutory period.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of 45 days and, therefore, dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was not entertained and was rejected. The tribunal reiterated the importance of adhering to the time limits prescribed under the I & B Code, 2016, and emphasized that the provisions of the code have an overriding effect over other laws.

---