Appeal Dismissed Due to Filing Delay Exceeding Statutory Limit

Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TSSPDCL) Versus CA. Swaminathan Prabhu Liquidator, SPP & Co., Infiniti Metal Products India Ltd.

Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TSSPDCL) Versus CA. Swaminathan Prabhu Liquidator, SPP & Co., Infiniti Metal Products India Ltd. ... Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Petitioner/Appellant was a party to the Impugned Order.
2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned.
3. Interpretation of Section 61 of the I&B Code, 2016 regarding the condonation of delay.
4. Applicability of Rule 150 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016.
5. Precedents set by previous judgments on similar issues.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Petitioner/Appellant was a party to the Impugned Order:
The Petitioner/Appellant argued that it was not a party to the Impugned Order dated 09.09.2022 in IA No. 910 of 2022 in CP (IB) No. 229/7/HDB/2020, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench - I, Hyderabad). The Petitioner/Appellant claimed to have become aware of the Impugned Order only on 29.11.2022 through the website of the Adjudicating Authority.

2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned:
The Petitioner/Appellant filed the appeal on 10.01.2023, resulting in a delay of 15 days beyond the prescribed period due to intervening holidays. The Petitioner/Appellant requested the Tribunal to condone the delay, asserting that it was neither willful nor wanton but due to factors beyond its control. However, the Tribunal noted that the actual delay was 79 days, not 15 days as computed by the Petitioner/Appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that it does not have the power to condone a delay beyond the statutory limit of 45 days (30 + 15 days).

3. Interpretation of Section 61 of the I&B Code, 2016 regarding the condonation of delay:
Section 61 (1) of the I&B Code, 2016 allows any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within 30 days from the date of passing the order. Section 61 (2) permits the Appellate Tribunal to condone a delay not exceeding 15 days if sufficient cause is shown. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Ors., which clarified that the limitation period begins from the date the order is pronounced, and the time taken to obtain a certified copy is excluded.

4. Applicability of Rule 150 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016:
Rule 150 outlines the procedure for the pronouncement of orders, stating that the Tribunal must pronounce an order either immediately or as soon as practicable but not later than 30 days from the final hearing. The Tribunal must provide a certified copy of every order to the parties. The Tribunal highlighted that the delay must be explained from the date the time started running out until the filing of the appeal, as per the decision in Ramlal v. Rewa Coal Fields Limited.

5. Precedents set by previous judgments on similar issues:
The Tribunal cited several precedents, including:
- V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Ors., which emphasized the statutory limitation period and the exclusion of time taken to obtain a certified copy.
- Valency International Pte. Ltd v. Vasudevan and two Ors., where the Tribunal reiterated that Section 61 of the I&B Code, 2016 is stringent, and delays beyond the prescribed period cannot be condoned.
- Exide Industries Limited v. Jitender Kumar Jain, which clarified that the limitation period begins when the order is pronounced, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction to condone the delay is limited to 15 days.
- M/s. Hasmukh N. Shah & Associates v. M/s. Victoria Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., where the Tribunal dismissed appeals filed after the expiry of the limitation period, emphasizing the need for diligence by litigants.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal was beyond the permissible limit under Section 61 of the I&B Code, 2016. Consequently, IA No. 166 of 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 46 of 2023 was dismissed, and the main appeal, Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 46 of 2023, was rejected. The connected pending IA Nos. 163 to 165 of 2023 were also closed.