Statutory appellate remedy and Section 14 limitation exclusion fail where writ proceedings were pursued without bona fide diligence.

Where a litigant, after being notified of the correct statutory appellate remedy, continues to pursue writ, appeal and review proceedings, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is unavailable because the earlier proceedings are not shown to be bona fide, diligent or in good faith. The supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be used to regulate NCLAT proceedings or override the special appellate scheme under the Companies Act. As the company appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and no valid exclusion of time was established, the delay application was rejected and the appeal was held barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could, in exercise of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, regulate or effectively control proceedings before the NCLAT in a manner affecting the merits of the appeal; (ii) whether the appellant could claim exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on account of proceedings pursued before the High Court; (iii) whether the company appeal was barred by limitation and the delay application was liable to be rejected.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could, in exercise of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, regulate or effectively control proceedings before the NCLAT in a manner affecting the merits of the appeal.

Analysis: The appellate forum under the Companies Act is a al statutory remedy, and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is extraordinary and ordinarily unavailable where an efficacious statutory appeal lies. The supervisory power under Article 227 is confined to courts and tribunals within territorial control and cannot be expanded to supervise or direct the NCLAT, which is a statutory appellate tribunal functioning over matters arising from multiple state benches. The judgment held that even alleged procedural defects or natural justice grievances against NCLT orders remain matters for the statutory appellate forum and do not justify routine invocation of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court could not validly regulate the NCLAT proceedings or direct condonation of delay in the appeal in the manner attempted.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could claim exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on account of proceedings pursued before the High Court.

Analysis: Section 14 applies only where the prior proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence, in good faith, and bona fide in a court unable to entertain it for want of jurisdiction or a like cause. On the facts, the appellant was repeatedly informed that the proper remedy was a company appeal before the NCLAT, yet continued with writ, writ appeal, and review proceedings. The conduct was held to be neither bona fide nor diligent, and the attempted reliance on Section 14 was therefore not available. The special limitation regime under the Companies Act was also treated as overriding the general limitation plea in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (iii): Whether the company appeal was barred by limitation and the delay application was liable to be rejected.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, even reckoning from the date when the appellant was clearly put on notice of the statutory appellate remedy. Because the earlier proceedings were not bona fide and did not satisfy the statutory conditions for exclusion of time, the delay could not be condoned. Once the writ proceedings were held not maintainable, the High Court could not pass an order that effectively determined limitation on the merits of the appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The delay application was rejected and the company appeal was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The statutory appellate remedy remained determinative, but the appellant's persistent pursuit of the wrong forum defeated any claim to exclusion of time, resulting in rejection of condonation and dismissal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: When a litigant, after being made aware of the correct statutory appellate forum, continues to prosecute writ proceedings without bona fide, due diligence, or good faith, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked to exclude time, and the special limitation under the parent statute must prevail.

---