TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal filed within 30-day limit remains valid despite defects requiring re-filing after curing</h1> <h3>Innovators Cleantech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pasari Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Innovators Cleantech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pasari Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Recall of orders dated 25.01.2024 and 06.02.2024.2. Dismissal of the appeal due to delay in re-filing.3. Validity of the appeal filed without a certified copy of the impugned order.Detailed Analysis:1. Recall of Orders Dated 25.01.2024 and 06.02.2024:The Respondent filed Interlocutory Applications (IAs) seeking to recall the orders dated 25.01.2024 and 06.02.2024. The order dated 25.01.2024 condoned an 86-day delay in re-filing the appeal, citing reasons such as misplaced documents and delays in verification and postal receipt of relevant documents. The order dated 06.02.2024 involved the issuance of notices and the submission of replies and rejoinders. The Tribunal examined whether the initial filing of the appeal on 25.09.2023 was valid and within the limitation period.2. Dismissal of the Appeal Due to Delay in Re-filing:The Respondent argued that the appeal, initially e-filed on 25.09.2023, was defective and should not be considered valid until it was refiled on 16.01.2024. They contended that the appeal was filed without essential documents like the impugned order, notarized affidavit, and Vakalatnama, making the initial filing non est. The Tribunal referred to Rule 22 and Rule 26 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, and the Supreme Court's judgment in Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that the limitation period should be computed from the date of e-filing. The Tribunal also noted that the requirement of physical filing had been dispensed with by an order dated 24.12.2022. Therefore, the appeal was deemed to have been filed within the limitation period, and the delay in re-filing was condoned.3. Validity of the Appeal Filed Without a Certified Copy of the Impugned Order:The Respondent contended that the appeal should be dismissed as it was not accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order, as required by Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. The Tribunal examined the Supreme Court's judgment in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd., which emphasized the importance of applying for a certified copy within the limitation period. However, the Tribunal noted that Rule 14 and Rule 15 of the NCLAT Rules allow for exemptions and extensions of time for compliance with procedural requirements. The Tribunal concluded that while applying for a certified copy is necessary for seeking exclusion under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, the mere absence of a certified copy at the time of filing does not automatically invalidate the appeal. The appeal was thus allowed to proceed.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the IAs seeking to recall the orders dated 25.01.2024 and 06.02.2024, upheld the condonation of the delay in re-filing the appeal, and allowed the appeal to proceed despite the absence of a certified copy of the impugned order at the time of filing. The appeal was scheduled for hearing on 22nd August 2024.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
