TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1424
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f delay in filing the appeal. The order impugned was delivered on 08.12.2023 by NCLT, Chandigarh Bench (Court-II), Chandigarh. This appeal has been filed on 12.06.2024. Notices were issued on the Delay Condonation Application. Reply has been filed by the Respondent to which Rejoinder has also been filed. In the application the ground taken by the Appellant is that after passing of the order dated 08.12.2023, the Appellant filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority for correction of order dated 08.12.2023 which was heard and decided on 29.04.2024 correcting the date of order from 08.12.2022 to 08.12.2023. In paras 3 and 4 of the application following reasons have been given : "3. After the passing of the order dated 8th ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n and from 31st May, 2024 and the filing clerk at Delhi had some important medical issue to be addressed. The petitioner's advocate then got another reference of a clerk who was available to file the said appeal and the same was finally filed on 12th June, 2024. Thus, it was only due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner that the instant appeal was filed 14 days beyond the 30 days period." 2. In the Reply filed by the Respondent, it is submitted that the appeal is filed beyond the condonable period. It is submitted that order was delivered on 08.12.2023 and although in the end of the order date mentioned is 08.12.2023 but on the first page of the order the date was mentioned as 08.12.2022. It is submitted that admitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imitation shall commence only from the date on which order was corrected. 3. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The order was delivered by the Court on 08.12.2023 and 30 days' period of limitation came to end on 07.01.2024 and further 15 days' period expired on 22.01.2024. The reason for not filing the appeal as claimed by the Appellant is that the application for correction of the order was filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority on 13.01.2024 i.e. after 30 days from passing of the order. IA which was filed for correction was allowed on 29.04.2024 where the Adjudicating Authority has noted that judgment was delivered on 08.12.2023, which is also clearly ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the Respondent in "Yerramaneni Ramakrishna & Ors. Vs. Suraksha Realty Ltd. & Ors." do support the submission of the Respondent in the above case where the typographical error in mentioning the date as 13.06.2024 was corrected as 13.05.2024. In the judgment Para 7, the correction allowed by the Court was noticed. This Tribunal in Para 8 noticing the V. Nagarajan's judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the limitation for filing the appeal shall commence after pronouncement of the order. After noticing submissions of both the parties in the above case, in Paras 9 to 11 following was laid down by this Tribunal: "9. The bone of contention between the parties is as to whether the Appeal is filed with delay of 15 days o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod taken for obtaining the certified copy, the Appeal has been filed within 30 days of the said Order. The Order dated 17.01.2023 has merged with the Order dated 21.03.2023 due to partial rectification." 11. The judgment of this Tribunal in Ashok Tiwari has no application in the facts of the present case. Since present is not a case of modification of the order. The Application filed by the Appellant in the above case for rectification of the order was partly allowed and order was modified and earlier order dated 17.01.2023 was modified, hence, this Tribunal held that earlier order stood merged with the subsequent order dated 21.03.2023. Present is not a case of any modification of the judgment dated 13.05.2024. The order delive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s apparent from page 47 of the order, which is to the following effect: "28. In the light of the above, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out a case for initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, therefore, present Section 9 petition is dismissed without cost. -Sd- (Umesh Kumar Shukla) Member (Technical) -Sd- (Dr. P.S.N. Prasad) Member (Judicial) December 08, 2023 VVC " 7. However, on the first page of the order by inadvertent mistake the date of judgment has been mentioned as 08.12.2022, which being an inadvertent error has subsequently corrected. The correction is only correction of date and not any correctio....