Appeal delay condoned as limitation period began from email communication date, not order pronouncement date

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Versus Sanjeev Maheshwari,  Liquidator of U.B. Engineering Ltd.

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Versus Sanjeev Maheshwari,  Liquidator of U.B. Engineering Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:

1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Commencement of limitation period for filing the appeal.
3. Application of legal principles regarding limitation and condonation of delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:

The primary issue addressed in the judgment is the application for condonation of delay by the appellant. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the order not being pronounced in open court and not being uploaded on the website until much later. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited and Ors.' to argue that the limitation period should not commence until the order is uploaded. The respondent countered that the appellant was aware of the order by 25.01.2024, and thus, the delay in filing the appeal was not justifiable. The tribunal, after considering the arguments and the precedent set by the Supreme Court, concluded that sufficient cause was shown for the delay and allowed the condonation application.

2. Commencement of Limitation Period for Filing the Appeal:

The judgment delved into when the limitation period for filing an appeal should commence. The appellant contended that since the order was not pronounced in open court on 22.11.2023, the limitation period should start from the date the order was uploaded or communicated. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in 'Sanjay Pandurang Kalate,' which held that the limitation period begins from the date the order is uploaded, not from the date of hearing. In this case, the tribunal noted that the order was communicated to the appellant by the liquidator on 25.01.2024, and thus, the limitation period should commence from this date.

3. Application of Legal Principles Regarding Limitation and Condonation of Delay:

The tribunal examined several judgments to determine the principles applicable to condonation of delay. It referred to 'Lingeswaran vs. Thirunagalingam' and 'Sheo Raj Singh vs. Union of India,' emphasizing that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously, but courts have the discretion to condone delays if sufficient cause is shown. The tribunal highlighted the distinction between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse,' noting that an explanation provides facts and circumstances justifying the delay, while an excuse denies responsibility. The tribunal found that the appellant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, aligning with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay, finding that the appellant had shown sufficient cause. The appeal was scheduled for admission on 31.05.2024. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules while also recognizing the courts' discretion to ensure justice by condoning delays when justified.