TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Certified True Copy' of the said 'impugned order', only on 24.11.2022. Petitioner / Appellant's Pleas: 2. It is represented on behalf of the Petitioner / Appellant that the Designated Partner, representing the 'Petitioner / Appellant', was diagnosed with a Fistula Opening in the Perianal skin and thus was in the process of numerous Medical Tests, as required by his Doctor from 22.12.2022. Further, the 'Petitioner / Appellant', had filed the 'Appeal Type Set', along with the 'Requisite papers', accompanying the same in 'E-filing Portal' on 23.11.2022 and that the 'Petitioner / Appellant', was not in a position to furnish the hardcopies of 'Appeal' Type Set, since, by that time, the 'Petitioner / Appellant', was ready with those papers and Type set on 23.12.2022, the 'Registry' of this 'Tribunal', was closed in accordance with the Office Timing and on the subsequent days, from 24.12.2022 to 28.12.2022, the 'Office of the Registry', was 'Closed', due to 'Holidays'. 3. It is the version of the Petitioner /Appellant that through Notification F.No.23/4/2022 - Estt. / NCLAT dated 24.12.2022, issued by the Principal Bench of NCLAT, New Delhi, it was clarified that the Hard Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, and that IA No. 149 of 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 41 of 2023, may kindly be allowed, in the interest of Justice. Appellant's Decisions : 7. On behalf of the Petitioner / Appellant, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 29.10.2020, in Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., (vide Civil Appeal No. 3564 of 2020 - SLP (C) No.11626 / 2020), is relied upon, wherein at Paragraphs 7 to 10, it is observed as under: 7. "We thus called upon the Registrar of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court to verify the aforesaid fact and communicate to this Court forthwith as to why the order had not been uploaded. We also restrained any coercive action in pursuance of the impugned order as we were unable to appreciate the controversy in the absence of any reasons. 8. The report was submitted by the Registrar (Judicial) stating that the order was pronounced on 21.01.2020 being only the operative portion, and the reasons were received by the Registry only on 09.10.2020 after almost nine months. It was uploaded on the same date. 9. On the aforesaid short ground, without even looking at any other aspect, we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Maharashra & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3564 of 2020] dated 29.10.2020, we had been called upon to comment on a similar scenario. We had emphasized that judicial discipline requires promptness in delivery of judgments, an aspect repeatedly emphasized by this Court when this problem gets compounded where the result may be known but not the reasons depriving the aggrieved party of opportunity to seek further judicial redressal. We have also referred to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court delivered as far back as in 1983 in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagdev singh Talwandi (1984) 1 SCC 596, which drew the attention of the High Court to serious difficulties caused on account of practice which was being increasingly adopted by several High Courts of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments. We have also referred to the subsequent judgments even delivered by this Court in our aforesaid judgment but there is no purpose in repeating the same. We appreciate that the learned Judge may have delivered a number of judgments and dealt with many cases and in the interregnum period may have even faced some personal difficulty as set out in the report but that does....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Counsel, who had immediate knowledge of the 'Order' dated 11.10.2022. In fact, the 'Order' dated 11.10.2022, was pronounced forthwith by the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('National Company Law Tribunal'), as per Rule 150 (1) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, and in fact, the 'Petitioner / Appellant', has knowledge about the 'Order' on 11.10.2022 itself, and hence the Limitation runs from 11.10.2022, excluding the 'Date of Order'. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent points out that the 'Computation of Limitation Period', as per the I & B Code, 2016, runs as under: S. No. Date Event Remarks 1 11/10/2022 NCLT Order dismissing the Intervention Petition. Appellant has knowledge of the Order on 11/10/2022 itself and Limitation start from that date. 2 10/11/2022 30th day Period within which Appeal has to be filed. 3 25/11/2022 15 days delay is allowed if sufficient cause shown. Maximum Period allowed for condonation of delay beyond which NCLAT has no power to condone. 4 23/12/2022 E-filing of appeal memo by the Appellants Filing on 73rd day - a delay of 43 days. 5 28/12/2022 Physical filing of above Filing on 78th day -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ended up to a period of fifteen days, and no more, upon showing sufficient cause. A sleight of interpretation of procedural rules cannot be used to defeat the substantive objective of a legislation that has an impact on the economic health of a nation." 17. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, cites the Judgment of this 'Tribunal' (Three Member Bench), between Exide Industries Ltd. v. Jitender Kumar Jain of Morakhia Copper & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. in Comp. App (AT) INS. No. 1169 of 2022 dated 12.10.2022, wherein at Paragraph 6, it is observed as under: 6. "In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the limitation for filing the Appeal begins when Order was Pronounced. The mere fact that Appellant received free certified copy of the Impugned Order on 27th July, 2022, the period of limitation shall not stop running after passing of the Order / Judgment. Our jurisdiction to condone the delay is only limited to 15 days under Section 61 (2) proviso. There being delay of more than 15 days, the Delay Condonation Application cannot be allowed. Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Memo of Appeal is rejected." 18. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, adv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod in preferring the 'Appeal', by any 'Person Aggrieved', in respect of an 'Order', passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority', is the 'deadline' prescribed as per Section 61 (2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. If an 'Appellate Tribunal' ('NCLAT'), is satisfied on 'sufficient cause', being shown to its 'subjective satisfaction', in regard to the preferring of an 'Appeal' (after the 'Expiry of 30 days period'), then, 'such period, shall not exceed 15 days', as per Section 61 (2) of the Code. Admittedly, the 'completion of 45 days' (30 + 15 days), was on 09.10.2022. In effect, the maximum 45 days being the outer limit (30 + 15 = 45 days), beyond which, the 'Appellate Tribunal' ('NCLAT), is 'bereft' of any power, to 'condone the delay', in the teeth of the mandate, prescribed under the I & B Code, 2016, as opined by this 'Tribunal'. 32. Apart from the above, the ingredients of Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, do not visualise that an 'Aggrieved Person' / 'Concerned Party', is to wait till he / it is in receipt of a 'Certified Copy' of the 'impugned order', for preferring an 'Appeal', before the 'National Company Law Appellate Tribunal'." 20. The Learned Couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting and shall be signed and dated by the President or Member or Members constituting the Bench which heard the case and pronounced the order. (3) A certified copy of every order passed by the Tribunal shall be given to the parties. (4) The Tribunal, may transmit order made by it to any court for enforcement, on application made by either of the parties to the order or suo motu. (5) Every order or judgment or notice shall bear the seal of the Tribunal." Explanation of Delay : 24. To be noted that from the date, the time was running out, until the date of preferring an 'Appeal' or an 'Application', as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramlal v. Rewa Coal Fields Ltd. AIR 1962, SC Page 361. 25. Undoubtedly, a 'Remedy', under the 'Limitation Rules', can be exercised only upto a particular point of time and not later, as the case may be. Indeed, the 'Stakeholders' / 'Litigants' / 'Entities', are to be quite diligent and they cannot remain 'negligent', and 'resort' to a 'callous attitude', especially, in the 'spirit' of the 'I & B Code', 2016, that 'Speed' is its 'Gist'. Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment : 26. In so far as the 'Plea' of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, in 'Open Court', on 11.10.2022 itself, it is held by this 'Tribunal', that it is a matter of 'Judicial Record' of the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('NCLT', Division Bench, Court-I, Chennai), presided over by the 'Hon'ble President' and a 'Technical Member', and as such, the contra stand taken on behalf of the 'Petitioner / Appellant', is not acceded to, by this 'Tribunal'. 29. In the instant case, the 'Order', dismissing Ivn.P/7(CHE)/2022 in IA/248(CHE)/2022 in IBA/471/2020, was Pronounced by the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('Tribunal') on 11.10.2022 in 'Open Court' itself, at once, and hence, the 'Petitioner / Appellant', cannot have any grievance, because in the presence of its 'Authorised Representative', the 'impugned order', was passed and as such, there is sufficient compliance of Rule 150 (1) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, in the considered opinion of this 'Tribunal', Moreover, the 'Petitioner / Appellant's Authorised Representative' and the 'Learned Counsel' for the 'Appellant', had knowledge of the 'Order' on 11.10.2022 itself, and hence, the time for computing the 'Limitation', had commenced from 11.10.2022, and there is no 'acceptable' / 'sufficient' justiciable reason on behal....