NCLAT rejects delay condonation application filed 18 days late when counsel was present during order pronouncement

The NCLAT dismissed the appellant's delay condonation application. The appellant claimed unawareness of the impugned order until it was uploaded on NCLT's website on 12.12.2023. However, the tribunal found that the order was pronounced on 10.11.2023 in the presence of appellant's counsel, making the limitation period commence from 11.11.2023. The appeal filed on 29.12.2023 was delayed by 18 days, exceeding the tribunal's 15-day condonable limit. The appellant failed to apply for a certified copy and could not claim ignorance of the order when their counsel was present during pronouncement.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Awareness and pronouncement of the impugned order.
3. Application for certified copy of the order and its relevance to limitation period.
4. Applicability of Section 12 of the Limitation Act.

Summary:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellant filed I.A. No. 478 of 2024 seeking condonation of an 18-day delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 10th November 2023. The appellant argued that the impugned order was not available until 12th December 2023 and was uploaded on the NCLT website between 9th and 12th December 2023. The appellant further stated that internal discussions and obtaining legal opinions caused the delay, which was not intentional or mala fide. The appellant also noted the tribunal was closed for Christmas holidays, extending the limitation period until 2nd February 2024.

2. Awareness and Pronouncement of the Impugned Order:
The respondent, Bank of Baroda, contended that the order was pronounced in open court on 10th November 2023 in the presence of the appellant's counsel, who raised objections noted in the order. The tribunal found that the order was indeed pronounced in the presence of the appellant's counsel, and thus, the appellant was aware of the order from the date of pronouncement.

3. Application for Certified Copy of the Order and Its Relevance to Limitation Period:
The appellant claimed they attempted to obtain a certified copy of the order but were informed by the registry that they could not apply as they were not a formal party to the I.A. The tribunal examined the NCLT rules and found that the appellant, being a party to the main company petition, was entitled to apply for a certified copy of the order. However, there was no evidence or pleading that the appellant had filed any such application.

4. Applicability of Section 12 of the Limitation Act:
The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in V. Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited, which clarified that the limitation period commences from the date of pronouncement of the order, and only the time taken to obtain a certified copy can be excluded. Since the order was pronounced on 10th November 2023, the limitation period started on 11th November 2023. The appeal filed on 29th December 2023 was beyond the condonable period of 15 days as per statute, and thus, the delay could not be condoned.

Conclusion:
The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the memo of appeal was rejected.

---