AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 929
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudicating Authority', 'National Company Law Tribunal', Bengaluru Bench, while passing the 'Impugned Order', dated 25.05.2023 in IA No. 399 / BB / 2020 in CP (IB) No. 189 / BB / 2018 (Filed by the 'Respondent No. 1 / Appellant'), under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016, among other things, at Paragraph Nos. 12 to 16, had observed the following: 12. "Moreover on perusal of the relationship note sent by the Respondent No.1 to Liquidator which is attached along with the rejoinder it is seen that Respondent No. 1 had invested up to Rs. 55 crores by subscribing to 5500 redeemable secured non-convertible debentures of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 falls within the purview of ' financial institution' as mandated under section 45 (i) (c) (i) and 45 (I) (c) (ii) of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. 13. It is pertinent to point out that there has been no objection filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, and accordingly this Tribunal forfeited the right to file objection on 25.08.2022. Further, on perusal of the documents submitted by the Liquidator it is seen that respondent No. 2 vide email dated 17.04.2020 has informed that the charge over the properties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht of the judgment cited supra this tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Respondent 1, 2 and 3 have to defray their portion of Liquidation Process Costs in terms of Regulation 2A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016." and disposed of the IA No. 399 / BB / 2020 in CP (IB) No. 189 / BB / 2018 accordingly. Appellant's Submissions : 3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant / 1st Respondent in IA No. 399 / BB / 2020 in CP (IB) No. 189 / BB / 2018, on 25.05.2023 was called upon to contribute their portion of 'Liquidation Process Costs', when such costs are neither due nor payable from the Appellant as the Appellant has chosen to opt out of the 'Liquidation Process', to realise its 'Security Interest'. 4. According to the Appellant, it is representing 'Debenture Holders', who are 'Secured Financial Creditors', and neither the 'Appellant' nor the 'Debenture Holders', are 'Financial Institutions', and as per Regulation 2A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, the 'Appellant', cannot be called upon to pay these 'Liquidation Costs', let alone to pay these 'costs upfront'. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the 'Adjudicating Authority', for the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process', got expired on 17.02.2020 and in IA No. 116 / 2020, filed by the 'Resolution Professional' of the 'Corporate Debtor', the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', was pleased to pass an 'Order', dated 13.03.2020 for Liquidation of the 'Corporate Debtor' and the '1st Respondent', was appointed as the 'Liquidator'. As a matter of fact, the Appellant has while being on the 'Committee of Creditors', contributed various Sums (to the tune of approximately INR Rs. 18 Lakhs), towards 'CIRP costs', but till date, not received its 'Share of Reimbursement' of those costs. 10. It is projected on the side of the Appellant that the 1st Respondent, after being appointed as 'Liquidator', by this 'Tribunal', through an 'Order', dated 13.03.2020, issued Public Announcement in Form B of Schedule II of the Liquidation Process Regulations, calling for 'submission of the Claims', on or before 17.04.2020. The Appellant, acting on behalf of the 'Debenture Holders', filed its 'Claim', dated 17.04.2020, in Form D of Schedule II, wherein the 'Appellant', has specifically mentioned that it is not relinquishing its 'Security ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Liquidator in ensuring that there is a smooth transfer of the Mortgage Properties to identify the Buyer at the earliest and no reply was received from the 1st Respondent / Liquidator to this letter and this non-cooperative and a lackadaisical attitude of the 1st Respondent / Liquidator has not only stalled the Transaction Process, but also, impleaded the whole process, undertaken by the 'Appellant' for taking possession of selling and disposing off the 'Securities', exclusively created in their favour. 15. According to the Appellant, it preferred an Application, in IA No. 178 / 2022, seeking appropriate directions against the Liquidator, under Section 52(5) of the I & B Code, 2016, which is still pending adjudication. Since, the Liquidator had acted in complete breach of fiduciary obligations to the Corporate Debtor and had failed to protect the interests of the 'Corporate Debtor', and its 'Creditors'. 16. The Appellant had filed an Interlocutory Application, seeking replacement of 'Liquidator' of the 'Corporate Debtor', and an 'Application', seeking replacement of the 'Liquidator' of the Corporate Debtor and removal of '1st Respondent / Liquidator', and the said Appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss or part of its Business, any of the various activities specified in Section 45-I. Further, the term 'Non-Banking Institution', is defined in Section 45-I (e) of the RBI Act, as a 'Company', 'Corporation' or a 'Co-operative Society'. 22. The functions performed by the Appellant and the Debenture Holders it represents are set out below, will indicate that the 'Appellant', the 'Debenture Holders', cannot qualify to be considered as 'Financial Institutions'. Entity Name Entity Kind Nature of Functions Relevant Annexures Essel Finance Advisors and Managers LLP Limited Liability Partnership under the LLP Act, 2008 Scheme Sponsor and Investment Manager for India Asset Growth Fund and India Asset Growth Fund II, undertaking fund management activities and investments in funds on behalf of persons/entities whose funds it manages. Claim Form Annexure - G (Pg 121) Relationship Note Annexure - U (Pg 30 of rejoinder) India Asset Growth Fund Alternative Investment Fund registered by SEBI Category-II Alternative Investment Fund registered with SEBI and regulated by SEBI AIF Regulations, primarily investing in senior, secured, unrated, unlisted and redeemable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive Society. They cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed to be 'Non-Banking Institution'. 24. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that even though the Elegant Marbles and Granite Industries Limited is a Company and may be termed as a 'non-banking institution', it is not in the business of Financing and in fact, is mainly in the business of Minerals as is set out in the main 'Clauses of the Memorandum of Association'. As such, Elegant Marbles and Granite Industries Limited, also cannot come within the meaning of a 'Financial Institution'. 25. According to the Appellant, even the provisions of Clauses 8 & 10 of the 'Ancillary Objects of the MOA', as pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the 'Liquidator', does not aid their arguments, since Clause 8 is relatable to the 'business', which the Company is authorized to 'carry on', and Clause 10 pertains to 'Issue of Debentures', by the 'Company', and not the 'Subscription of Debentures'. 26. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that neither the 'Appellant' nor the 'Debenture Holders', it acts on behalf of the fall within the definition of Non-banking Institution, under Section 45-I(e) of the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case, any 'Demand', by the 'Liquidator', towards 'Liquidation Costs', as a 'pre-condition', to grant permission, to opt out of the 'Liquidation Process', runs counter, to the 'Scheme' of the I & B Code, 2016. 32. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that the calculation of Liquidation Costs, provided by the 'Liquidator', is not as per what is permitted under the Code and applicable Regulations. Further, the 'Appellant', continues to stand outside the 'Liquidation Estate' and enforce its 'Security Interest', on its own. Resultantly, the Liquidator, cannot be permitted to treat the 'Security Interest' of the Appellant, as part of the 'Liquidation Estate'. 33. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant, while summing up, prays for allowing of the instant 'Appeal', by setting aside the 'Impugned Order', dated 25.05.2023 in IA No. 399 / BB / 2020 in CP (IB) No. 189 / BB / 2018, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority', National Company Law Tribunal', Bengaluru Bench. 1st Respondent / Liquidator's Contentions: 34. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Liquidator submits that the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', while passing the 'Impugned Order', in IA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances or otherwise, of any activity other than its own; (ii) the acquisition of shares, stock, bonds, debentures or securities issued by a Government or local authority or other marketable securities of a like nature:" 36. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Liquidator points out that the 'Non-Banking Institution', is defined as under: 45-I e) "non-banking institution" means a company, corporation or co- operative society; f) "non-banking financial company" means- i) a financial institution which is a company; (ii) a non-banking institution which is a company and which has as its principal business the receiving of deposits, under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner, or lending in any manner; (iii) such other non-banking institution or class of such institutions, as the Bank may, with the previous approval of the Central Government and by notification in the Official Gazette, specify." 37. According to the 1st Respondent, the Appellant has filed a 'Claim' on behalf of the Eduskill Realtors LLP, which is a 'Limited Liability Partnership' as well as Elegant Marbles and Granite Industries which is a Priv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xercise its right, under Section 52 of the Code. 41. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Liquidator, refers to the Judgment dated 02.11.2022 in Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) V. Shri. Vijender Sharma (vide Comp. App (AT) (INS) 1027 of 2021), wherein, at Paragraphs 19 & 21, it is observed as under: 19. "On the basis of detailed discussion in the aforementioned paragraphs, it becomes abundantly clear that the Resolution Professional was following the procedure as set out in the Liquidation Process Regulations with regard to the disposal of secured assets, including the HSIIDC Bawal Property in which SIDBI has expressed its intent to realise its security interest. It also becomes clear that due to misinterpretation and lack of proper understanding of the procedure, SIDBI was unable to follow the requirements as was being communicated to him by the liquidator and, hence the liquidator had to approach the Adjudicating Authority thrice in the course of liquidation to seek necessary directions qua the Appellant. We also find that such difficulties being faced by the liquidator were being brought to the knowledge of the Stakeholders' Consultatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowed the I.A. No. 883 of 2021. Following order has been passed in paragraph 9: "For the foregoing reasons, we allow this IA and direct the respondent bank to pay an amount of Rs. 1.84 crores to the liquidation estate along with interest @6% on this amount from 1st of April, 2021, till the date of its actual payment by the respondent to the liquidation estate. IA 883/KB/2021 is disposed of and CP No. 482/KB/2017 is listed for progress report on 29 August, 2022." "20. We have noticed above that statutory scheme provides submission of claim on a liquidation commencement date which is a fixed connotation. When a statute provides for liquidation commencement date as a date up to which claims can be filed and proved, no claim thereafter can be entertained by the Liquidator. The amount of interest which was retained by the Appellant claiming to be interest in addition to the claim as filed by it in Form D till the date of realization of receipt of the sale, cannot be permitted to be retained by the Appellant and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly passed the order allowing application filed by the Liquidator to hand over the additional amount to the Liquidator. Lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....V. SKS ISPAT Power Limited & Ors. (vide Civil Appeal No. 3327 / 2020), wherein, it is observed as under: 19. ".......The import of Section 12 of the Limitation Act and its explanation is to assign the responsibility of applying for a certified copy of the order on a party. A person wishing to file an appeal is expected to file an application for a certified copy before the expiry of the limitation period, upon 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." 45. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Liquidator, while winding up, submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fessed on it. U/s. 33 of the IBC 2016. IA No. 116 / 2020 in CP (IB) No. 189 / BB / 2018 is hereby disposed of with following directions: 1. We hereby order that M/s. Samruddhi Realty Ltd. Respondent / Corporate Debtor to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in Chapter III (Liquidation Process) Part II of the Code. 2. We hereby appointed Pankaj Srivastava, IP, Bearing Reg. No. IBBI/IPA- 001/IP-P00245/2017-18/1047 as Liquidator subject to the terms and conditions to be agreed upon the parties in the light of the extant provisions of the IBBI." 50. It comes to be known that the 1st Respondent / Liquidator, as per Regulation 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, made a Public Announcement in FORM - B of the Schedule - II on 17.03.2020 in Deccan Herald and Prajavani and stipulated the last date of submission of Claim as 17.04.2020. 51. The Respondents, filed their 'Claims' in prescribed FORM - D as the 'Financial Creditors' with the 1st Respondent / Liquidator. During the 'CIRP', the Respondents were the 'Financial Creditors', constituting the 'Committee of Creditors'. Before the 'Liquidation Order', being....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 'excess Liquidation Costs', and as per Regulation 2A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations 2016, read with the Approval of the 'Committee of Creditors', through an 'email dated 02.04.2020', the Petitioner / 1st Respondent / Liquidator, had sought for the remittance of a Sum of Rs.78,83,441/-, being the Share of the 1st Respondent / Appellant, towards the 'Liquidation Costs', in the account of the 'Liquidation Costs Account' of the 'Corporate Debtor', from the 1st Respondent / Appellant, being a 'Financial Creditor', and also a 'Financial Institution', which was duly approved in the '12th Committee of Creditors Meeting'. 54. The 1st Respondent / Appellant, through an email dated 03.04.2020, had informed the 1st Respondent / Petitioner / Liquidator, that 'they are not liable to pay the 'Liquidation Costs', as they do not fall under the category of 'Financial Institutions'. 55. According to the 1st Respondent / Liquidator, the Respondents are 'Financial Institution', falling within the meaning of the term, 'Financial Institution', and Section 2 (14) of the I & B Code, 2016, defines a 'Financial Institution', as under: (14) "financial institution" means- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the 1st Respondent / Liquidator, the 'Respondents', are well within the meaning of the term 'Financial Institutions', and hence, is liable to pay the 'Liquidation Process Costs', as per Regulation 2A of the Liquidation Process Regulation, 2016. 58. The 1st Respondent / Liquidator through emails dated 02.04.2020 and 07.04.2020, had sought remittance towards the 'Liquidation Costs', as stipulated under Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016, in the 'account of the Liquidation Costs Account of the Corporate Debtor', from the 2nd Respondent / India Bulls Asset Reconstruction Company, being the 'Financial Creditor' and the 'Financial Institution' of the 'Corporate Debtor'. 59. The 2nd Respondent / India Bulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, sent its 'updated Claim', through an 'email', dated 17.04.2020, pursuant to the 'commencement of Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor' and further, informed the Petitioner / 1st Respondent / Liquidator that a 'hard copy of the Claim Form', shall be submitted, once 'Lock Down', is lifted. 60. Furthermore, through an email dated 17.04.2020, the 2nd Respondent / India Bulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited had informed the 1st Respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt out of the Liquidation Process' of the 'Corporate Debtor', in the prescribed format and the 1st Respondent / Liquidator / Petitioner, had requested the 3rd Respondent / Phoenix ARC Private Limited, to pay the 'Liquidation Process costs', as per the provisions of the Code. In fact, the 3rd Respondent / Phoenix ARC Private Limited, through an 'email', dated 19.06.2020, had submitted their 'Claim', in the prescribed format along with an affidavit in support and informed the 1st Respondent / Petitioner / Liquidator that the same was sent through 'Courier', as well to the 1st Respondent / Petitioner. 66. Indeed, the 3rd Respondent / Phoenix ARC Private Limited, through an 'email', dated 23.06.2020, had informed the 1st Respondent / Petitioner / Liquidator, that the 'Sale Proceeds', as per Section 53(1)(a), the 'Liquidation Process Costs', shall be recovered from the 'Sale Proceeds' of the 'Assets' and also that Regulation 2A of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016, apply to the Financial Institutions. Besides that, the 3rd Respondent / Phoenix ARC Private Limited, had stated that they wished to 'opt out of the Liquidation', however, they being an 'ARC', they are not liable to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the 2nd Respondent / India Bulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited that their 'respective Share of Liquidation Costs of Rs.35,64,024/-', which includes the 'approved Liquidation Costs and Liquidation Fee', and further, requested to 'remit their respective Share as a whole' or 'at least 30%', within '5 days, from the issuance of the Letter'. 71. The 1st Respondent / Liquidator, had provided the 'Liquidator's Fee Estimate', as per Regulation 4 (2)(b) of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016, which runs as under : Amount of Realization 7 to 12 Months 145.00 From To Net Fees On the first 1 crore 3.75 - 1.00 1.00 0.04 On the next 9 crores 2.80 1.00 9.00 8.00 0.22 On the next 40 crores 1.88 10.00 40.00 30.00 0.56 On the next 50 crores 0.94 40.00 50.00 10.00 0.09 On further sums realized 0.19 50.00 145.00 95.00 0.18 Sub-total 1.10 Amount Distributed to Stakeholders 7 to 12 months 145.00 From To Net Fees ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the I & B Code, 2016. 77. Hence, the IA No. 399 / BB / 2020 in CP (IB) No. 189 / BB / 2018 is filed in a 'Bona fide' manner, and in the 'interest of Justice', the said Application, may be allowed by issuing necessary directions to the Respondents, to forthwith defray the portion of 'Liquidation Process costs', as per 'Regulation 2A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations'. Appellant / 1st Respondent's Objections : 78. The Appellant / 1st Respondent (M/s. Essel Finance Advisors & Managers LLP) in its Objection Statement, before the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', in IA No. 399 / BB / 2020 in CP (IB) No. 189 / BB / 2018, had mentioned that in terms of Regulation 2A of the Liquidation Process Regulations, it is only the 'Financial Creditors', who are 'Financial Institutions', who may be called upon by the 'Liquidator', to contribute the 'excess of the Liquidation Costs', over the 'Liquid Assets' of the 'Corporate Debtor', in proportion to the 'Financial Debt', owed to them, by the 'Corporate Debtor'. 79. The clear cut stand of the Appellant / 1st Respondent, before the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', is that 'Financial Institution', as per Section 3 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, had clarified that it is not a 'Financial Creditor', who are 'Financial Institution' and therefore, are 'not liable to contribute any sums', towards 'Liquidation Costs'. 85. The prime contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant / 1st Respondent is that on 13.02.2020, the 'Committee of Creditors', in their 12th Meeting, had explicitly stated that 'Liquidation Costs', are to be met by the 'Financial Creditors', being 'Financial Institution', as per Regulation 2A of the Liquidation Process Regulations, vide Annexure-M, Page 187 of the 'Appeal Paper Book of the Appellant'. Besides this, through a letter dated 07.04.2020, the 1st Respondent / Liquidator had accepted that the 'Appellant', is not a 'Financial Creditor', who is a "Financial Institution' and he is not liable to pay 'Liquidation Costs'. Therefore, a stand is taken on behalf of the Appellant that the 1st Respondent / Liquidator / Petitioner cannot be permitted to backtrack from the stand taken by it, without cogent evidence and explanation to substantiate the same (vide Annexure P - Page 199 of the Appeal Paper Book of the Appellant). 86. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant, before this 'Tribunal', submits tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Authority' / 'Tribunal', in Paragraph 13 of the 'Impugned Order', had observed that 'further, on perusal of the documents submitted by the Liquidator it is seen that Respondent No. 2 vide email dated 17.04.2020 has informed that the charge over the properties of the Corporate Debtor will not be relinquished to the Liquidation Estate and it will proceed under the SARFAESI Act for the sale of properties of the Corporate Debtor. Further, vide email dated 18.06.2020 Respondent No. 2 gave assurance to the Liquidator to pay the Liquidation Process costs of the Corporate Debtor. The said email has been found attached along with the Petition'. 91. The 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', in the 'Impugned Order', at Paragraph No. 14, had mentioned that 'in this connection, it is relevant to mention here that in the Written Submission, the Respondent No. 3 has explained that they have filed a Writ Petition, challenging the constitutional validity of Regulation 2A and 21A of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. However, the same is not relevant here, and the Respondent No. 3 are directed to pay the portion of the Liquidator's fees which is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... borne in mind when a 'Secured Creditor', exercise its right as per Section 52 of the I & B Code, 2016, there is no provision in the I & B Code, 2016 or Regulation, which provides for 'extension of time', to pay the 'Liquidation Costs'. Also that, it is quite clear from the Regulation 21A of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016, that the 'Secured Creditors', who do not relinquish their 'Security Interest', in the 'Liquidation Estate' is required to pay the Sum as payable under clause (a) and sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Code, which includes the 'Appellant'. 97. In the present case, even though the 'Appellant', has taken a plea that it and the 'Debenture Holders', it represents are not 'Financial Institutions' and not liable to 'pay the Liquidation Costs', being a 'Member' of the 'Committee of Creditors' of the 'Corporate Debtor', on the basis of 'Investment', made of Rs.55 Crores, by subscribing 5500 Redeemable Secured Non-Convertible Debentures of Rs.1,00,000/- etc., it is one of the 'Financial Creditors' and being a 'Financial Institution', in the considered opinion of this 'Tribunal', is liable to pay the 'Liquidation Costs', as pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in thirty days, which can be extended 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." 100. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Liquidator / Petitioner, adverts to the Paragraph 19 of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid V. Nagarajan's case, wherein, it is observed as under : 19. ".......The import of Section 12 of the Limitation Act and its explanation is to assign the responsibility of applying for a certified copy of the order on a party. A person wishing to file an appeal is expected to file an application for a certified copy before the expiry of the limitation period, upon 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 whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or obtaining a copy is to be ascertained from the copy actually filed along with the 'Memorandum'. 105. It is worth for this 'Tribunal', to make a useful reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Lala Balmukund V. Lajwanti, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1089, wherein, it is observed as under: "In our opinion, the expression "time requisite" as used in s. 12(2) in the phrase in question, means all the time counted from date of the pronouncement of the judgment (the same being under Or. 20, r. 7, CPC, the date of the decree) which would be properly required for getting a copy of the decree, including the time which must ex-necessitate elapse in the circumstances of the particular case, before a decree is drawn up and signed. If any period of the delay in preparing the decree was attributable to the default or negligence of the appellant, the latter shall not be entitled to the exclusion of such period under s. 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908." 106. According to the Appellant, it is representing the 'Debenture Holders', who are secured 'Financial Creditors' and further, while being on the 'Committee of Creditors', had contributed various Sums (to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pple, where they could compute limitation from either when the 'Certified Copy', is received on the litigant's 'Application' or received as a 'Free Copy', from the 'Registry' - whichever is later'. 111. Also that, it cannot be overlooked that the obligation of the Appellants / Petitioners, to obtain a 'Certified Copy' of the 'Impugned Order', through an 'Application', and to annexe the same with the 'Appeal' is a 'mandatory' one, in terms of Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, in the considered opinion of this 'Tribunal'. 112. Earlier, the Petitioners / Appellants in IA No. 1007 of 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 332 of 2023, sought to condone the purported delay of 11 days (according to them), but, according to the 'Office of the Registry', the delay comes to 14 days and this 'Tribunal', had allowed the IA No. 1007 / 2023 on 24.01.2024, by directing the 'Appellants', to pay a Costs of Rs.3,000/-, to the 'Prime Minister's Relief Fund', to be paid by them, within two weeks from 24.01.2024. The 'Appellants', have paid the said Costs of Rs.3,000/-. 113. The obligation of the 'Affected / Aggrieved Party', to exercise due diligence and to apply for a 'Certified Copy', up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Application for securing a 'Certified Copy' of the 'Impugned Order' was made, on their behalf, no exclusion of 'time requisite', as per Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, will ensue in their favour, as opined by this 'Tribunal', in a clear cut manner. 120. Considering the fact that the 'Appellants', have averred in Paragraph 6 of the 'Memorandum of Appeal', under the caption 'Limitation' that a copy of the 'Order', was accessed by them and made available to their knowledge on the Official Website of the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', on 29.05.2023, and the instant 'Appeal', came to be filed on 08.07.2023 and the 'delay of purported 11 days' (according to the 'Appellants / Petitioners') and according to the 'Registry', it is 14 days, being condoned in IA No. 1007 / 2023 in the instant 'Appeal', on 24.01.2024, it is held by this 'Tribunal' that the filing of the 'Certified Copy' of the 'Impugned Order', is to accompany the instant 'Appeal', mandatorily (unless an 'Exemption Application', being filed by the 'Party', seeking it, to exempt from filing of the 'Impugned Order' and 'appropriate Orders', for allowing the said 'Application', being obtained thereon, from this ....