TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hid Karim Khan and Ms. Tanya Raizada, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pranaya Goyal, Mr. Chiranjivi Sharma, Ms. Rati Patni, Ms. Kathleen Lobo, Ms. Nehal Gupta, Ms. Alina Merin Mathew, Ms. Sanchi Jain, Mr. Chitranshul Sinha, Mr. Sagar Bansal and Mr. Dhruv Parwal, Advocates JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J. IA No.5760 of 2024 and IA No.5765 of 2024 have been filed in these two Appeals praying for condonation of 15 days' delay in filing the Appeals. The impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Court-2 was pronounced on 13.05.2024. Both the Appeals have been e-filed on 28.06.2024. The office report indicates that 30 days' period expired on 12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... merged with order dated 14.05.2024 and the date for computation of limitation is 14.05.2024. Counsel for the Appellant has relied on judgment of this Tribunal in "Ashok Tiwari vs. Tattva & Mittal Lifespaces Pvt. Ltd.- Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 729 of 2023" decided on 31.10.2023 to support the submission that when the order is corrected subsequently the earlier order shall merged in subsequent order and limitation can be computed from subsequent order. 5. Counsel for the Respondent submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Ors.- (2022) 2 SCC 244", the period for limitation shall commence after the order is pronounced. It is submitted that the present c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tled that limitation for filing the Appeal under Section 61 of the IBC commences after pronouncement of the order and in event, the certified copy is applied within 30 days, period which is consumed in preparation of certified copy of the order is excluded. Timelines under IBC are tightly circumscribed as has been held in "V. Nagarajan" (supra). In paragraphs 25, 33 and 35 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down following:- "25. The law on limitation with respect to the IBC is settled and emphatic in its denunciation of delays. The power to condone delay is tightly circumscribed and conditional upon showing sufficient cause, even within the period of delay which is capable of being condoned. The IBC is a watershed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2013 read with Rule 50 of the NCLT and prevent limitation from running. Accepting such a construction will upset the timely framework of the IBC. The litigant has to file its appeal within 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. 35. The appellant was present before the NCLT on 31 December 2019 when interim relief was denied and the miscellaneous application was dismissed. The appellant has demonstrated no effort on his part to secure a certified copy of the said order and has relied on the dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant as not maintainable. Appellant thereafter filed an application for rectification of the order on 15.02.2023 which was partly allowed by order dated 21.03.2023. Appeal was filed in this Tribunal on 12.05.2023. It was contended that the Appeal against the order dated 21.03.2023 was filed within time since copy was applied on 21.03.2023 and issued on 17.04.2023. In the above background, this Tribunal held that the order dated 17.01.2023 was merged with the order dated 21.03.2023 due to partial rectification. Paragraph 4 of the judgment is as follows:- "4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and we find that the Appellant herein had filed for rectification of Order dated 17.01.2023 on 15.02.2023 which is withi....