TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1073
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....020. 2. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. E. Om Prakash, appearing for the Applicant/Appellant submitted that the Impugned Order was pronounced on 09.08.2023 and a copy of the Impugned Order was made available on the website of the Adjudicating Authority on 10.08.2023; that the Applicant was not a party to the proceedings and therefore did not apply for a certified copy of the Order and was not a privy to the pleadings in the Application; that the Liquidation Application of the Corporate Debtor IA/919/2023 was reserved for Orders on 11.08.2023 and therefore the Third Respondent waited for the outcome of the Liquidation Application in order to decide whether to prefer an Appeal against the Impugned Order; that the Liquidation Order of the Corporate Debtor was passed on 12.09.2023 and the same was made available on 13.09.2023, by which Order the Second Respondent was appointed as Liquidator and not the Third Respondent, subsequent to which this Appellant decided to file the Appeal. 3. It is submitted that the Applicant/Appellant had placed the e-copy of the Impugned Order before the management to take a decision and since it was not able to obtain the certified copy of the Impugned O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Reliance is also placed on Rule 114 of the NCLAT Rules which is reproduced here under : "(1) The parties to any case or their authorised representative may be allowed to inspect the record of the case by making an application in writing to the Registrar and by paying the fee prescribed thereof. (2) Subject to such terms and conditions as may be directed by the President by a general or special order, a person who is not a party to the proceeding, may also be allowed to inspect the proceedings after obtaining the permission of the Registrar in writing." 7. It is contended by the first Respondent's Counsel that in terms of the above Rules enumerated under Part XIV of the NCLAT Rules, the Appellant could have made an Application for the inspection of pleadings before the Registry but did not make any endeavour to do so, despite the fact that the Appellant has 85% voting share in the CoC of the Corporate Debtor. 8. It is seen from the record that the Impugned Order is dated 09.08.2023 and it is admitted by the Applicant/Appellant that the Order was uploaded on 10.08.2023. The 30 day period from 10.08.2023 ends on 08.09.2023. The Appeal was e-filed on 23.09.2023 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der. The liquidation order of the Corporate Debtor was passed on 12.9.2023 and the same was made available on 13.9.2023. In the liquidation order, the 3rd Respondent was not appointed as the liquidator and the 2nd Respondent was appointed. In view of the same. the 3rd Respondent did not prefer any appeal. Therefore, the Appellant decided to prefer the appeal. 7. Immediately, upon e-copy of the Impugned Order was made available and the documents relating to the Application was shared by the 3rd Respondent, the Applicant had placed the same before the management of the Applicant to take a decision on preferring an appeal. The Applicant submits that it had time again informed the 3rd Respondent regarding preferring an appeal. However, owing to the above, the appeal could not be preferred by the 3rd Respondent. 8. The Applicant/Appellant states that, since it was not able to obtain the certified copy of the Impugned Order in time and due to the above reasons, the appeal could not be filed in time. Hence, the Applicant/Appellant is filing the present application. Assuming the e-copy of the Impugned Order was uploaded on the website of the Adjudicating Authority on 9.8.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication." (Emphasis Supplied) 12. The aforenoted ratio clearly specifies that the discretion lies with the Courts to distinguish between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse' and only then to exercise discretion to condone the delay. In the instant case, it is crystal clear that the Appellant was aware of the Impugned order on 10.08.2023 itself and the justification given that the Appellant had requested the Third Respondent/The erstwhile RP to apply for a certified copy of the Impugned Order since it was not a party to the proceedings is rejected as Rule 50 read with Clause 31 of the Schedule of Fees of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 provides for the Registry to send a certified copy of the final Order to the parties concerned free of cost and the certified copies may be made available with costs as per schedule of fees, in all cases. Hence, it is clear that the Appellant itself could have applied for a certified copy by making an Application wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be used to defeat the substantive objective of a legislation that has an impact on the economic health of a nation. 34. On the second question, Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules mandates the certified copy being annexed to an appeal, which continues to bind litigants under the IBC. While it is true that the tribunals, and even this Court, may choose to exempt parties from compliance with this procedural requirement in the interest of substantial justice, as re-iterated in Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules, the discretionary waiver does not act as an automatic exception where litigants make no efforts to pursue a timely resolution of their grievance. The appellant having failed to apply for a certified copy, rendered the appeal filed before the NCLAT as clearly barred by limitation. on limitation. Accordingly, the present appeal under Section 62 of the IBC stands dismissed." (Emphasis Supplied) 14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that since the Liquidation Order was passed on 12.09.2023 and the ERP was replaced by the Liquidator, the certified copy could not be obtained on time. We are of the considered view that neither the provision....