TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he impugned order dated 22.11.2019 in I A No. 5432/2019 in Company Petition No (IB) O3/BB/2017 and as such, the Applicant/Appellant was unaware and kept in dark about the 'On going status' of the case. 4. It is represented on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant that the Applicant/Appellant came to know of the passing of the impugned order only in the month of May, 2020 from the online portal of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Bangalore). 5. The main plea of the Applicant/Appellant is that the Applicant/Appellant was unable to collect relevant information and documents because of the situation worsened to the State of Tamil Nadu and that the Government of India was forced to impose a Nationwide lockdown from 24.03.2020 etc., and therefore, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant could not be instructed to draft the 'Appeal' for a long time. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo motu writ petition (Civil 3 of 2020) on 23.03.2020 passed an order extending the limitation as applicable under 'General Law and Special Laws' whether condonable or not with effect from 15.03.2020 till furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., shall become available with effect from 14.03.2021. 2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and proviso (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 12. Added further, in the judgment of the National Company Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 28.05.2018 in Comp App (AT) (Ins) Nos. 160 and 258 of 2017, between Pr. Director General of Income Tax (Admn. TPS) and ors v Spartek Ceramic India Limite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its mandatory nature. To put in in a different way, the prescription of limitation is a case of further delay not beyond 60 days, it would come within the ambit and sweep of the provisions and policy of legislation. It is equivalent to Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it is uncondonable and it cannot be condoned taking recourse of Articles 142 of the Constitution". 14. It transpires that the main Company Petition CP (IB) No. 03/BB/2017 was filed by M/s. Sunline Suppliers Private Limited under section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016, which was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru) as per the order dated 27.06.2017 by initiating the 'CIRP' etc., and an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed and later a 'Liquidator' was appointed. 15. It is pertinently pointed out that the Applicant/Appellant in the 'List dates of Events' furnished in the present Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) 31/2021 had mentioned that on 07.09.2018 in reply to EPF CP -1 a mail was received from the Employer Shri. Ravindra Ganamukhi that the matter was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority in CP (IB)/BB/17 on 20.02.2018 and further the Applicant/Appellant's office ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Applicant/Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Bengaluru) had not served the copy of the impugned order to it, it is to be pointed out that as per Rule 50 of the NCLT, Rules, 2016 the Registry shall send a certified copy of the final orders passed to the parties concerned free of cost and the certified copies may be made available with costs as per Schedule of fees in all other cases. Since, the Applicant/Appellant was not a party to the proceedings in IA No. 543 of 2019 in Company Petition No. CP (IB) No. 03/BB/2017, on the file of the Adjudicating Authority, the question of sending copy of impugned order to the Applicant/Appellant does not arise, in considered opinion of this Tribunal. 21. In view of the fact that the impugned order in IA No. 543 of 2019 in CP (IB) No. 03/BB/2017 was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 22.11.2019, the Applicant/Appellant cannot seek the assistance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order 23.03.2020 in Suo Motu in (Civil) (s) No. 3/2020, as opined by this Tribunal. 22. Be that as it may, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v Kirusa Software Private Limited reported in MA....