Certified free copy and limitation in appeal filing: divergent views on Section 12(2) exclusion and sufficient cause for delay.

A duly certified free-of-cost copy issued by the adjudicating authority may satisfy the certified-copy requirement for filing an appeal under the NCLAT Rules. One view held that, although no exclusion of time under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act is available without an application for a certified copy, the appeal is not defeated if the free copy bears proper certification. On delay, the tribunal accepted reasons such as festive constraints, difficulty in obtaining legal advice, and a voluminous paper-book as sufficient cause for condonation. The Members recorded divergent views, and the matter was referred for constitution of an appropriate Bench and decision by a Third Member.

---

---

Issues: Whether the free-of-cost copy issued by the NCLT qualifies as a certified copy for the purpose of filing an appeal under Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016; whether time taken to obtain such free copy is excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963; and whether the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: One Member held that a free copy issued by the NCLT, being certified under the Registry's hand and seal, is a certified copy for the purpose of Rule 22(2), and that there is no distinction in law between a paid certified copy and a free certified copy once the document is duly certified. On limitation, that view held that the appellant had not applied for a certified copy, so no exclusion under Section 12(2) could be claimed, but the absence of a paid-copy application did not invalidate the appeal where a duly certified free copy was filed. On delay, the reasons relating to festive season constraints, difficulty in coordinating legal advice, and the voluminous paper-book were accepted as sufficient cause.

Conclusion: The delay-condonation application was allowed, and the main appeal was directed to be listed for admission.

Final Conclusion: The Bench recorded divergent views and the record was directed to be placed before the Chairperson for constitution of an appropriate Bench and decision by a Third Member.

Concurring Opinion: The Member (Technical) agreed that the free-of-cost certified copy satisfies Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 and that no exclusion under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 was available in the absence of an application for certified copy, but held that the delay of 3 days was shown to be supported by sufficient cause and therefore condonable.

Ratio Decidendi: A duly certified free copy issued by the adjudicating authority may satisfy the requirement of a certified copy for appeal purposes, but exclusion of time under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act depends on due diligence in applying for a certified copy, while condonation of delay turns on whether sufficient cause is established.

---