TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Srinath Sridevan , Senior Advocate For Mr. Ashwin Shanbhang , Advocate ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) [ Per : Jatindranath Swain , Member ( Technical ) ] 1. The instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the Impugned Order dated 23.12.2022 in IA(IBC) No.203/KOB/2022 in CP(IBC) No.18/KOB/2021 on the file of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench. Along with the Appeal, 3 Interlocutory Applications (IA) have been filed. They are IA No.375/2023 to Condone Delay of 8 days in representation of the papers, IA No.383/2023 seeking to Condone Delay of 14 days in filing the Appeal and IA No.384/2023 seeking an interim stay of the operation of the Impugned Order of NCLT, Kochi. 2. The matter was heard on 24.04.2023. IA No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, hearing on IA No.383/2023 was taken up afresh. The Appellant has contended that the order was pronounced on 23.12.2022 in virtual mode and the order was digitally signed only at 3.25 PM of the same day as can be seen in the copy of the impugned order. The copy of the order was uploaded on 26.12.2022 and the Certified Copy of the order was sent by NCLT Registry to him by email on 27.12.2022. Thus, for him the clock should start running from 27.12.2022, the date on which he received the Certified Copy, or at the most from 26.12.2022 when the copy was uploaded because he has no way of knowing what was there in the order. Computing from 27.12.2022, the time taken by him for filing the Appeal in 44 days (excluding 27.12.2022) and computing fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Respondent further contends that the Appellant has not given credible reasons for the delay of 14 days (as claimed by him) beyond the 30 days period and that no document pertaining to the year of 2008 has been filed by the Appellant in the present Appeal despite taking the plea that it took time to procure the same. He refers to the index of typed set of papers attached to this Appeal Petition to prove his point. He further states that the Appellant had always access to the so-called old papers including those relating to the year 2008 as he had filed the same in his reply in the matter of IA(IBC) No.203/KOB/2022 before NCLT, Kochi Bench and a perusal of the index of reply filed by the Appellant will show that all documents in respect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xamined in detail. It is seen that the impugned order was pronounced on 23.12.2022 which has been accepted by the Appellant. However, his contention is that, it has been signed at 3.25 PM on the same date and the two subsequent days being holidays, it is not possible for him to know the details of the order so as to start his preparations for the Appeal. And therefore, the limitation period should start from 27.12.2022 or at the maximum, 26.12.2022 when the order was uploaded. He cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate case to state that the date of uploading of the order, should be the crucial date for the purpose of computing the limitation period. However, in the abovementioned case the judgement was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and retrieving 15-year old records loses its credibility on face of the contention of the Respondent that all the records were already filed with NCLT and that it was always with him. The Appellant has tried to counter this by saying that the Respondent has not filed any documents to support his contention. The same can be said for the Appellant too. It is seen that the Respondent has at least offered the index of the typed set of papers annexed to the Appeal before NCLAT and the Application filed before NCLT to support his contention. On the other hand, the Appellant has not shown a single document which as per his claim took a long time to trace and collect. This makes us to come to the conclusion that 'sufficient cause' has not been demo....