TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(CHE)/2022, as preferred in CP(IB)/1169/CHE/2019, had rejected the 'Application of Claim', raised by the 'Appellant'. 2. Though primarily the question which would be required to be considered at this stage by this 'Tribunal', would be confined to the aspect of determination of limitation, in preferring an 'Appeal', under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the light of the provisions contained under (Sub Section 2) of Section 61, but Tribunal feels apt to deal with the basic issues for the purposes of better elucidation of the aspect of limitation. 3. The Corporate Debtor i.e. M/s. Easun Reyrolle Ltd. (herein to be called as the 'Corporate Debtor') who was admitted into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process vide order dated 5th May 2020, in a proceedings being held as IBA/1045/2019 State Bank of India M/s Easun Reyrolle Ltd. Consequent to the admission of the Corporate Debtor into Liquidation, an order was passed on 17th February 2022 in IA/817(CHE)/2021 in IBA/1045/2019 and IBA/1169/2019 whereby the Respondent was appointed as Liquidator. 4. The Respondent who was appointed as a Liquidator by an order dated 17.02.2022, upon assumption of his office h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereto, the respondent had stated that since the e-auction has taken place on the basis of "as is where is, as is what is, and without recourse basis", the EMI has been forfeited. Based on these issues the Appellant had approached National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, consequent to his approach to the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, the Adjudicating Authority by the Impugned Order dated 17th November 2022, had forfeited the 'Earnest Money Deposit' and accordingly the 'act of the Liquidator', was held to be just and valid by the impugned judgement. 6. It is aggrieved against the said Judgement, that the instant Appeal has been preferred. 7. What is the relevant to point out, at this juncture is that the judgement was rendered on 17th November 2023, the Appellant was admittedly signatory to the judgement as reflected from order sheet itself, meaning thereby as on the date of pronouncement of the judgement on 17th November 2023, the Appellant had the knowledge of rendering of the judgement of directing forfeiting his EMD. But despite of the judgement having been rendered on 17th November 2023, the Appellant for the reasons best known, had belatedly applied for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring the first week of December 2023, and (iv) lastly the Appellant was unable to engage a legal professional for seeking legal advice and thus the appeal was barred by 14 days. 11. On the contrary, the determination of limitation as it has been made by the Registry, it has computed the delay of 28 days from the date of judgement. Admittedly the judgement, was pronounced on 17th November 2023 in the presence of the appellant and well with the knowledge of its pronouncement would be attributed to him from the said date itself and if there is a belated application filed by him before the 'Registry of the Tribunal', for procuring the certified copy of the order, which admittedly according to him had happened to be after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, statutorily prescribed under (sub Section 2) of Section 61 of the Act, i.e. 21st December 2023, he cannot take the advantage of determining the limitation as to be 14 days by excluding the aforesaid period and contending thereof, that in the light of the provisions contained under section 12 of the Limitation Act, the said period involved in getting the certified copy has to be excluded for the purpose of determina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he reason being that admittedly because even after having received the certified copy of the judgement on 5th January 2024, the affidavit in support of delay condonation application was got prepared only on 30th of January 2024. Meaning thereby there had been an intervening delay of 8 days in preferring the appeal even from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgement as per appellant's case itself. Even this Court doesn't find any logic that when the certified copy was received on 5th January 2024 and the affidavit in support thereto was prepared on 13th January 2024, what was the justified reason available at the hands of the appellant, even with effect from 5th January 2024 for not filing an appeal within the time till 14th of January 2024. 15. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of his contention has heavily relied upon the Judgement as reported in 2022 (1) 2 SCC Page 244 V Nagarajan Vs SKS Ispat and Powers Ltd. and Ors. and particularly he has made reference to para 31 of the Judgement which is extracted hereunder:- "In other words, he intends to contend that any person aggrieved by an order/judgement who intends to file an appeal is expected to f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by the court/tribunal after determination of issues and upon an application of mind in the open court/tribunal and the said conditions stands satisfied that the certified copy of the judgement itself where the 'Appellant' is a signatory to it (i.e. the judgement) signifying the fact that he was available and present on the date of the pronouncement and hence since he had positive knowledge of the pronouncement for him the limitation would start running from 17th November 2023 and not from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order as argued. 19. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied upon a Judgement rendered by the Principal Bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in Comp. App. (AT)(Ins) No.1169/2022, EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS Jitender Kumar Jain Resolution Professional of Morakhia Copper & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., where too the Principal bench has observed and has laid down that the Limitation of filing the appeal begins when the order was actually pronounced, and particularly when pronounced in the court in the presence of the Appellant. The receipt of the free copy or a free certified copy would not be the part or the period involved therein which coul....