2024 (3) TMI 135 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appeal Dismissed: Delay Condonation Denied as Appeal Filed Beyond Legal Timeframe After Order Passed in Presence of Parties.

Supreme Construction Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Puranik Builders Ltd.

The NCLAT dismissed the Appellant's Delay Condonation Application, ruling that the limitation period for filing an appeal began on 07.11.2023, when the ... Commencement for limitation of appeal - relevant date - date of uploading of the order or the date when order was passed? - HELD THAT:- In the Delay Condonation Application filed by the Appellant in paragraph 3 the Appellant states “that the matter was listed before the Ld. NCLT on 07.11.2023 for purpose of “For Seeking Appropriate Directions” whereupon the impugned Order came to be passed”. There are no averments in the application that no order was passed on 07.11.2023 by the Court. Appellant sought to rely on date of uploading of the order which may not help the Appellant in the present case. The order was passed in presence of both the parties whose presence are noted in the order. The limitation to file an appeal shall commence from 07.11.2023 and the Appeal having been filed beyond 15 days after expiry of the limitation, delay cannot be condoned. The jurisdiction to condone the delay is limited to only 15 days by Section 61(2) proviso. The Delay Condonation Application is dismissed. Issues Involved:The judgment deals with the issue of Condonation of Delay in filing an Appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Court-IV.Condonation of Delay:The Appellant filed an application for Condonation of Delay in filing the Appeal, citing that the order dated 07.11.2023 was uploaded on the NCLT website only on 19.12.2023, and the certified copy was received on 20.12.2023. The Appellant referred to a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case to support the request for condonation.Arguments of the Parties:The Respondent opposed the Appellant's submission, stating that the order was passed on 07.11.2023 in the presence of both parties' counsels. The Respondent argued that the date of uploading the order is irrelevant, and the limitation for filing the Appeal should commence from the date the order was passed.Court's Analysis:The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and examined the record, focusing on the order dated 07.11.2023. The order indicated that it was passed in the presence of both parties, dismissing the application filed by the Appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that when an order is passed in the presence of both parties, the Appellant cannot claim ignorance of the order.Comparison with Precedent:The Tribunal distinguished the present case from a Supreme Court judgment where no substantive order was passed on a specific date. In the current case, the order was clear, passed in the presence of both parties, and the Appellant failed to apply for a certified copy within 30 days from the order date.Decision and Rationale:The Tribunal dismissed the Delay Condonation Application, stating that the limitation to file an appeal should commence from 07.11.2023 when the order was passed. As the Appeal was filed beyond the 15-day limit after the expiry of the limitation, the delay could not be condoned. The Tribunal's jurisdiction to condone the delay was limited to 15 days by Section 61(2) proviso, leading to the rejection of the Memo of Appeal.This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the judgment, focusing on the issue of Condonation of Delay and the Tribunal's decision based on the arguments presented by the parties and the analysis of relevant legal principles and precedents.