TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: "2. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 05.05.2022 has not been uploaded till date on the website of the National Company Law Tribunal https://nclt.gov.in/. In fact, a copy of the order dated 05.05.2022 has been supplied to the official liquidator through post and the same has been sent to the Applicant herein after a delay of 40 days on 13.06.2022. 3. It is submitted that the period of limitation commenced from the date when the copy of order was provided to the Applicant, i.e. 13.06.2022. It is submitted that the summer vacation of the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal began from 06.06.2022 and ended on 03.07.2022. Accordingly, the Applicant filed the appeal on the first date of the reopening of Hon'ble Tribunal i.e. 04.07.2022." 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appeal has been filed within 30 days from the date the Appellant received the copy of the Impugned Order which was sent to the Appellant by the Liquidator. He submits that the limitation should be computed from the date of knowledge of the Order by the Appellant i.e. with effect from 13th June, 2022 and from that date it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; "24. IBC is a complete code in itself and overrides any inconsistencies that may arise in the application of other laws. Section 61 of the IBC, begins with a non-obstante provision - "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act, 2013" when prescribing the right of an aggrieved party to file an appeal before the NCLAT along within the stipulated period of limitation. The notable difference between Section 421(3) of the Companies Act and Section 61(2) of the IBC is in the absence of the words "from the date on which a copy of the order of the Tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved" in the latter. The absence of these words cannot be construed as a mere omission which can be supplemented with a right to a free copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies Act read with Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules for the purposes of reckoning limitation. This would ignore the context of the IBC's provisions and the purpose of the legislation. ................... 28. In this background, when timelines are placed even on legal proceedings, reading in the requirement of an "order being made available" under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the law is to impose an obligation on the appellant to apply for a certified copy once the order was pronounced by the NCLT on 31 December 2019, by virtue of Section 61(2) of the IBC read with Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules. In the event the appellant was correct in his assertion that a correct copy of the order was not available until 20 March 2020, the appellant would not have received a certified copy in spite of the application till such date and accordingly received the benefit of the suo motu order of this Court which came into effect on 15 March 2020. However, in the absence of an application for a certified copy, the appeal was barred by limitation much prior to the suo motu direction of this court, even after factoring in a permissible fifteen days of condonation under Section 61(2). The Court is not empowered to condone delays beyond statutory prescriptions in special statutes containing a provision for limitation. D. Conclusion 33. The answer to the two issues set out in Section C of the judgment- (i) when will the clock for calculating the limitation period run for proceedings under the IBC; and (ii) is the annexation of a cer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uing notice was not sustainable. In the above judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly laid down that Appeal against the Order of NCLT should have been preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of order passed by the NCLT. Following observations has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "Learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated that period of limitation would start from the date of knowledge. Though, the claim was filed by Respondent No. 1 before the Resolution Professional, it was not a party before the NCLT which passed the order approving the resolution plan. According to the learned counsel for 1st Respondent, he came to know about the order passed by the NCLT much later. Support was sought from a judgment of this Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer [1962 (1) SCR 676] for submitting that provisions relating to limitation have to be given a liberal construction. The judgment that is relied upon by the Respondent No. 1 relates to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, we are concerned with the limitation prescribed by Section 61 of the IBC which fell for consider....