AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 801
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iation ("UTCA"). The Appellant aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2024 has filed the present Appeal on 27.12.2024 with the delay of 117 days. Notices were issued on delay condonation application - IA No.959 of 2025, by order dated 06.03.2025. Reply has been filed on the delay condonation application by Respondent, to which, rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. 3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the application are : (i) Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") commenced against the Corporate Debtor ("CD") on an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "IBC"). Liquidation proceedings commenced against the CD on 10.01.2020 and one Mr. Harish Chander Manchanda was appointed as Liquidator. (ii) The Appellant filed IA No.3698 of 2024, praying for following reliefs: "(i) Set Aside decision of rejection dated 29.11.2023 taken by Liquidator in 10th SCC Meeting and decision of rejection dated 10.06.2024 taken by Liquidator in 15th SCC Meeting for Scheme of Compromise submitted by Applicant jointly with members of Stakeholders Consultation Committe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the project. The appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 02/08/2024 passed by Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority in CP(IB)-16 of 2017. 1. The Appellants seek the liberty to refer and rely upon the averments, submissions, contentions, etc., made in the accompanying appeal as a part and parcel of the present Application and the same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 2. The Appellants are filing the present application seeking condonation of delay of 117 days in filing of appeal against the impugned order dated 02/08/2024. 3. That appellant has previously filed a Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) 1877 of 2024 which was dismissed due to reasons as mentioned in the dismissal order dated 26/11/2024 (Annexure 1) 4. In the same order, Hon'ble Appellate authority has allowed the appellants to challenge the order dated 02/08/2024. 5. Grave prejudice would be caused to the Appellants, if the present application is not allowed in the terms of relief prayed hereinafter. No prejudice of any nature whatsoever would be caused to the Respondents if the present application is allowed in terms of reliefs prayed herein. 6. The applicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itation Act, can be extended to the Appellant. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. The earlier Appeal, which was filed by the Appellant being Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1877 of 2024 was filed against two orders, i.e. dated 29.07.2024 and 30.07.2024. Both the orders, which were challenged in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1877 of 2024 have been noticed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order dated 26.11.2024, which are as follows: "26.11.2024: This appeal is filed under Section 61 of the IBC, 2016 to challenge two orders i.e. the order dated 29.07.2024 passed in I.A. No. 3698 of 2024 in CP (IB) No. 16/PB/2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court No. V. The said order dated 29.07.2024 read as under:- "PRESENT: For the Applicant : Mr. P Nagesh, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Shashank Raghav, Ms. Shubhangini Yadav, Mr. Ankur Saraswat, IA/3698/2024 For the Respondent : New IA/3698/2024:- ORDER Ld. Sr. Counsel on behalf of the Applicant is present. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as submitted various objections on the process of the E-Auction of the Corporate Debtor. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the Greater NOIDA Authority that the Liquidator has not admitted the claim of the Greater NOIDA Authority in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhjit Singh Soni case and without admitting their claim and making them as a party of the Stakeholders Consultation Committee, the Liquidator has taken further steps. The Liquidator is directed to examine the claim of the Greater NOIDA Authority in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhjit Singh Soni case and take all appropriate actions including making the Greater NOIDA Authority as a member of the Stakeholder Committee if they are entitled to do so as per law. We direct that till this issue is decided, further proceeding in respect of E-Auction shall not take place. List this application on 27.08.2024 at 11:30 am. List all other applications on 27.08.2024 at 11:30 am."" 9. This Tribunal heard the Appellant and discrepancy was pointed out to the Appellant. This Tribunal after hearing the parties expre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Appellant to challenge the order in accordance with law, which is contained in paragraph 14 of the Appeal, which is as follows : "14. However, while dismissing the present appeal, we still give an opportunity to the Appellant to challenge the order dated 02.08.2024 in accordance with law because it is a separate cause of action, other than the one against which the appeal was initially filed to challenge the order dated 29.07.2024 and 30.07.2024. While concluding, we can only hope that this kind of situation will not arise in future and the Counsel for the parties may not invite an embarrassing order because of their own fault and force this Court to take strict action against them." 11. The Appeal was dismissed by imposing cost. 12. The Appellant's submission is that on account of liberty granted by this Tribunal vide order dated 26.11.2024, while deciding the earlier Appeal, the present Appeal has been filed on 27.12.2024, hence, the Appeal be entertained. When we look into the observation made in paragraph 14, this Tribunal observed that "However, while dismissing the present appeal, we still give an opportunity to the Appellant to challenge the order date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt without jurisdiction. On analysis of the said section, it becomes evident that the following conditions must be satisfied before Section 14 can be pressed into service: (1) Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party; (2) The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith; (3) The failure of the prior proceeding was due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature; (4) The earlier proceeding and the latter proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue and; (5) Both the proceedings are in a court." 16. The Limitation Act, Section 2(h) defines 'good faith' in following words : "2(h) "good faith"-nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention;" 17. Order dated 02.08.2024 was never challenged in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1877 of 2024 and it was sought to be inserted at the time of refiling of the Appeal. The act of the Appellant was clearly reckless and had been adversely commented by this Tribunal on 26.11.2024 as noticed above. Neither t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the person aggrieved" in the latter. The absence of these words cannot be construed as a mere omission which can be supplemented with a right to a free copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies Act read with Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules for the purposes of reckoning limitation. This would ignore the context of IBC's provisions and the purpose of the legislation. 31. ...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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 34. On the second question, Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules mandates the certified copy being annexed to an appeal, which continues to bind litigants under IBC. While it is true that the tribunals, and even this Court, may choose to exempt parties from compliance with this procedural requirement in the interest of substantial justice, as reiterated in Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules, the discretionary waiver does not act as an automatic exception where litigants make no efforts to pursue a timely resolution of their grievance. The appellant having failed to apply for a certified copy, rendered the appeal filed before NCLAT as clearly barred by limitation." 10.3.1. This Court in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistra ITCL India Ltd. & Others, has pointed out that the date on which the limitation begins to run is intrinsically linked to the date of pronouncement. After referr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y only up to 15 days beyond the initial 30-day period. Where a statute expressly limits the period within which delay may be condoned, an Appellate Tribunal cannot exceed that limit. In other words, the NCLAT being a creature of statute, operates strictly within the powers conferred upon it. Unlike a civil suit, it lacks inherent jurisdiction to extend time on equitable grounds. 11.1. Once the prescribed and condonable periods (i.e., 30 + 15 days) expire, the NCLAT has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals, regardless of the reason for the delay. In Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, while interpreting Section 9 IBC, this Court underscores the IBC's strict procedural discipline i.e., only applications strictly conforming to statutory requirements can be entertained. This principle is also applicable to limitation issues under section 61(2), as it supports the idea that tribunals must operate within the bounds of the Code, without adding equitable or discretionary powers not conferred by statute. This Court in Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited & Another has categorically held that the NCLAT cannot condone any delay be....