Tribunal Denies Delay Condonation; Stresses Timely Certified Copy for Appeals to Adhere to Procedural Timelines.

The tribunal dismissed the petition for condonation of an 18-day delay in filing the appeal, stressing the necessity of obtaining a certified copy promptly. It emphasized that receiving a free copy after the limitation period does not justify delay condonation. The tribunal upheld the importance of adhering to procedural rules and timelines.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal based on the receipt of a free of cost copy.
2. Interpretation of rules regarding the requirement of a certified copy for filing an appeal.
3. Application of legal precedents regarding the commencement of the limitation period for filing an appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an application for condonation of an 18-day delay in filing an appeal, where the appellant argues that the delay should be excluded as he received a free of cost copy of the order after the prescribed period. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court judgment in "State Bank of India vs. India Power Corporation Ltd." to support his claim. However, the tribunal noted that the appellant did not apply for a certified copy and only relied on the free copy received on a later date. The tribunal referenced the principles laid down in previous judgments to emphasize the importance of vigilance in obtaining a certified copy to avoid delays in filing appeals.

2. The tribunal analyzed the rules governing the requirement of a certified copy for filing an appeal. It highlighted the distinction between a free copy and a certified copy, emphasizing that a litigant must apply for a certified copy promptly after the order is pronounced. Referring to Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules and Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, the tribunal clarified that the receipt of a free copy does not excuse a litigant from the obligation to apply for a certified copy within the prescribed time frame. The tribunal emphasized that procedural rules cannot be manipulated to circumvent the substantive objectives of the legislation.

3. The judgment also delved into the application of legal precedents regarding the commencement of the limitation period for filing an appeal. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in "V Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. & Ors.," the tribunal reiterated that the limitation period for filing an appeal starts from the date the order is pronounced, and litigants must exercise due diligence in obtaining a certified copy promptly. The tribunal emphasized that the mere receipt of a free copy after the limitation period has expired does not justify condonation of delay, especially when the delay exceeds the permissible limit.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the delay condonation petition and the memo of appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines for filing appeals and obtaining certified copies promptly to avoid delays and uphold the integrity of the legal process.

---