TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1008
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the Respondent : Mr. P. Elayarajkumar, Mr. R. Imayavaramban, and Mr. S. Jayaharan, Advocates For M/s. Ramalingam & Associates ORDER (Virtual Mode) Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial): IA No. 378 of 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 104 / 2023: According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant, the 'Impugned Order', dated 31.01.2023 in IA (IBC) / 643 / 2021 in CP (IB) No. 12 / 10 / HDB / 2019, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench) and in preferring the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS.) No. 104 of 2023, before this 'Tribunal', there has occasioned a 'Delay of 14 Days', which is neither willful nor wanton, but due to the fact that 'Internal Approvals' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded. (3) .... (4) .... Explanation.- In computing under this section the time requisite for obtaining a copy of a decree or an order, any time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy thereof is made shall not be excluded." 27. In V Nagarajan (supra), a three judge Bench of this Court observed that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules 2016 mandates that an appeal has to be filed with a certified copy of the impugned order. The Court held t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n which the "time requisite" for obtaining a copy is to be excluded. However, the time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy is made cannot be excluded. If no application for a certified copy has been made, no exclusion can ensue. In fact, the Explanation to the provision is a clear indicator of the legal position that the time which is taken by the court to prepare the decree or order cannot be excluded before the application to obtain a copy is made. It cannot be said that the right to receive a free copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies Act obviated the obligation on the appellant to seek a certified copy through an application. The appellant has urged that Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules empo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Company Law Tribunal', Court No.2, Hyderabad Bench), according to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant, the 'impugned order', was passed on 31.01.2023, by the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', and the 'Certified True Copy', was made ready by the 'Registry' of the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', on 02.02.2023, and the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 104 / 2023, before this 'Tribunal', should have been filed on 02.03.2023 (30 days time limit), as per Section 61 (2) of the I & B Code, 2016. 7. It comes to be known that the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 104 / 2023, before this 'Tribunal', was filed on '19.03.2023 - 23.03:167', by the Petitioner / Appellant, on '45th day' (from the date of 'Certified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d elapsed, which is 'impermissible', because of the fact that an 'Appeal', is to be filed, within '45 days' (30 + 15 = 45 days), being the 'Outer Limit', and further that, there is no provision in the I & B Code, 2016, to 'Condone the Delay', beyond the period of '15 days', ofcourse, after the 'expiry of 30 days', mentioned in Section 61 (2) of the I & B Code, 2016. 12. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, refers to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd & Ors. (vide Civil Appeal No.: 3327 / 2020 dated 22.10.2021), reported in India Kanoon, wherein, at Paragraph 21, it is observed as under: 21. "...... It is not open to a person aggrieved by an order under the IBC to await t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ither side, this 'Tribunal', taking note of the 'primordial fact' that the 'Certified True Copy' of the 'Impugned Order', was made ready by the 'Office of the Registry' of the 'Adjudicating Authority', on 02.02.2023 ('Impugned Order', came to be passed on 31.01.2023), and the instant 'Appeal', came to be filed on 19.03.2023, before the 'Office of the Registry', this 'Tribunal', comes to an inevitable, inescapable and irresistible conclusion, by 'excluding the time taken by the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', to prepare an 'Order', that the instant 'Appeal', came to be filed on '45th day' (30 + 15 = 45 Days), within the 'Permissible Time Period', and viewed in that perspective, 'Condones the Delay of 15 Days' (after the expiry of 30 d....