TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 449
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder', 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 Copy of the Appeal Papers (Type Set), can be submitted wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 issued notice returnable for today and stayed the operation of the impugned order. 10. We must note with regret that the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ine 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 not take away from the fact that the process which was required to be followed as set out in the judicial pronouncements has not been followed in the present case. If a judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal'), 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 - a delay of 48 days. 14. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent contends that the 'Petitioner / Appellant', has E-filed the instant 'Appeal', after a 'Delay of 43 days', and the Physical Filing was done after a 'Delay of 48 days', and therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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, adverts to the 'Order' dated 19.10.2022 of this 'Tribunal', in Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. v. Tracks and Towers Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (vide Comp. App AT CH INS. No. 370 of 2022), wherein at Paragraphs 7 and 8, it is observed and held as under: 7. "Rule 150 of NCLT Rules, 2016 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 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 Counsel for the Respondent, while rounding up, points out that the 'Outer Limit' for 'Preferring' an 'Appeal' (30 + 15 = 45 days), came to an end, on 25.11.2022. As a matter of fact, the instant 'Appeal', was filed by the 'Appellant' on the 78th day, and that, any 'Delay' beyond '45 days' of the 'Order', is ineli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the 'Petitioner / Appellant', is that the 'Impugned Order' in Ivn.P/7(CHE)/2022 in IA/248(CHE)/2022 in IBA/471/2020, was not 'Pronounced' by the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('Tribunal') on 11.10.2022, and the same was not available for a long period and further that it was uploaded by the 'NCLT' ('Tribunal') on 21.11.2022, this 'Tribunal', pertinently points out the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder', 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 behalf of the 'Petitioner / Appellant', in remaining 'inactive' from 11.10.2022 to 24.11.2022. 30. In the instant case, the Petitioner / Appellant, from the date of 'Pronouncement of Order' of 'Dismissing' the Ivn.P/7(CHE)/2022 in IA/248(CHE)/2022 in IBA/471/2020, on 11.10.2022 (in Open Court), by the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('NCLT'), the instant 'Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 41 of 2023, ought to have been ....