AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the Respondent : Sr. Advocate Malvika Trivedi, Sunil Fernandes, Parag Maini, Raghav Chadha, Advocates JUDGEMENT Ashok Bhushan, J: 1. I.A. No. 3412 of 2022 has been filed by the Appellant praying for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals. These two Appeals have been filed against the Orders dated 08th June, 2022 and 31st August, 2022. These Appeals have been filed on 12th September, 2022. In so far as the Order dated 31st August, 2022 is concerned, the Appeal is within time. However, in reference to the Order dated 08th June, 2022, there is delay in filing the Appeal. 2. In the Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking Condonation of Delay it is stated that the Respondent herein filed an I.A. No. 2691/2022 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant has prayed for condonation of delay. 2. Shri Abhinav Vasisht, Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submits that on 08.06.2022 the parties were heard on I.A being I.A. No. 2691 of 2022 but the order was not dictated in the Court and was not pronounced on that date. He submits that he came to know about the order only on 01.08.2022 when it was uploaded on the website. He submits that the I.A. No. 2691 of 2022 was not listed on several dates when the other Applications were listed. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent has refuted the submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant and submits that the order was pronounced on 08.06.2022 and the Appeal is barred by time insofar as the order dated 08.06.2022 is concerned. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the order of NCLT in this particular matter is concerned, it has been ascertained that the matter was listed on 08.06.2022 and was heard by the Hon'ble Principal Bench with the Coram of Hon'ble Member (J) Shri Dharminder Singh and Hon'ble Member (T) Shri Avinash Srivastava. The order was uploaded on 29.07.2022. These facts may be kindly placed before Hon'ble Principal Bench, NCLAT. Kind Regards, ......" 5. The Registrar of NCLT in his Report has stated that matter was listed on 08th June, 2022 and was heard by the Principal Bench and was uploaded on 29th July, 2022. Vide Order dated 26.09.2022, Report was called for from the Registrar. We have clearly asked with regard to the status of the Order dated 08th June, 2022 and date ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Counsel for the Respondent submits that in absence of any material submitted along with Application by the Applicant, to prima facie demonstrate that Order was not available on 08th June, 2022 and was available thereafter, the Appellant cannot claim extension of limitation. The Respondent is asking the Appellant to prove a negative fact by giving evidence. The Appellant has categorically mentioned that arguments were heard on 08.06.2022 and according to the Appellant, Order was reserved whereas the Respondents submit that preliminary objection was rejected but neither in the Report submitted by the Registrar NCLT nor in the Affidavit of Reply, it is stated that order was dictated in the open Court on 08th June, 2022 and Order was made avai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the Hearing raising objection regarding the maintainability of the Application. There cannot be any dispute to the law laid down in the "V. Nagarajan" (supra). The facts and circumstances of the present case are entirely different. Appellant's case is that Order was reserved on 08th June, 2022 and was not made available and from the Report which we have called for from Registrar NCLT it has not come to notice that Order was made available, neither Registrar in his Report nor Respondent in the Reply have stated that Order was dictated in the open Court on 08th June, 2022 and was made available on 08th June, 2022. 10. We are satisfied that present is a case where the Appeal cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation. After order beca....