TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s well as Applicant in person were present. (ii) Appellant also applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 28.07.2025. The certified copy was ready on 08.08.2025 which was delivered on 12.08.2025. (iii) Appellant challenging order e-filed this appeal on 28.08.2025. 2. In the application for condonation for delay notices were issued and time was allowed to file reply. Reply has been filed by the Respondent No.1 to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the Appellant. In the reply, the Respondent has come up with the case that order dated 11.06.2025 was pronounced by the Tribunal in open court in presence of the Appellant and his counsel. The present appeal has been filed on 28.08.2025, which is much beyond period of limitation. The outer limit of condonable period being 15 days, the appeal, having been filed with delay of 49 days beyond statutory period, is barred by time and deserves to be rejected. 3. We have heard Shri Karan Gandhi, learned counsel for the Appellant/Applicant and Shri Sonam Anand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the case was listed in the cause list not for prono....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vs. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 721", "Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1042", "Directorate of Enforcement vs. Anil Kumar Mittal, Resolution Professional of Varutha Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1820" and "Haryana State Industrial & Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Benlon India Ltd., Civil Appeal No.9380-81/2022". 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. We need to first notice the reasons given by the Appellant/ Applicant for condonation of delay. In the application in Para F (ii), it is pleaded that the delay has primarily occurred on account of presentation of the matter before the CoC of the Corporate Debtor. In the application, which has been filed for condonation of delay, Appellant has not pleaded that order was not pronounced on 11.06.2025. However, in the Rejoinder Affidavit, it is pleaded that order dated 11.06.2025 was uploaded on 04.07.2025. 9. The only issued which need to be considered and decided in the present application is as to whether limitation for filing the appeal against order dated 11.06.2025 shall commence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther directed that future dues be paid on time. " [Emphasis supplied by us] 11. The above discussion before the CoC, which is extracted and relied by the Appellant, itself indicate that in the hearing held on 11.06.2025 the Resolution Professional was represented through counsel and arguments made before the Bench has also been extracted. The discussion further noticed that "After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Bench held that under Section 14 of the IBC, dues for the CIRP period were payable and directed that the CD shall pay the CIRP-period dues, including applicable delay charges, and that UPCL must restore the electricity supply immediately. The Bench further directed that future dues be paid on time.". The statement made in the rejoinder by the Appellant makes evidently clear that order was passed in the open court. In Para 6 of the rejoinder affidavit following has been pleaded by the Appellant: "That the order passed by the Adjudicating authority was pronounced in open court but attained finality only upon its uploading on 04.07.2025 on the NCLT portal. Proof of date of uploading of order 04.07.2025 being uploaded as so on 11.06.2025 is annexed as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e period of limitation shall start from the very date. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also noticed the earlier judgment in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. delivered on 17.09.2023 where it was noted that no order was pronounced. The above judgment has thus, categorically laid down that period of limitation is linked to date of pronouncement. When it is case of the Appellant itself that order was pronounced in the open court on 11.06.2025, the running of limitation cannot remain arrested till 04.07.2025 when it was uploaded, as contended by the Appellant. The above judgment in no manner supports the submission of the Appellant. 14. We need to notice the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited & Ors., (2024) 3 SCC 27". The above was a case where against order dated 17.05.2023 appeal was filed on 10.07.2023. NCLAT has dismissed the appeal as barred by time. Contention was raised that on 17.05.2023 on the date when matter was heard no substantive order was passed and order was uploaded on 30.05.2023. In the above case, it was thus concluded that limitation for filing the appeal shall commence from 30.05.2023 whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt and respondent, shall make and pronounce an order either at once or, as soon as thereafter as may be practicable but not later than thirty days from the final hearing. (2) Every order of the Tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed and dated by the President or Member or Members constituting the Bench which heard the case and pronounced the order. (3) A certified copy of every order passed by the Tribunal shall be given to the parties. (4) The Tribunal, may transmit order made by it to any court for enforcement, on application made by either of the parties to the order or suo motu. (5) Every order or judgment or notice shall bear the seal of the Tribunal. 151. Pronouncement of order by any one member of the Bench.-(1) Any Member of the Bench may pronounce the order for and on behalf of the Bench. (2) When an order is pronounced under this rule, the Court Master shall make a note in the order sheet, that the order of the Bench consisting of President and Members was pronounced in open court on behalf of the Bench." (emphasis supplied)" 16. In Para 18 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that as pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 and 32 of the judgment following has been laid down: "31. The import of Section 12 of the Limitation Act and its Explanation is to assign the responsibility of applying for a certified copy of the order on a party. 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 application. The appellant has urged that Rule 1420 of the NCLAT Rules empowers NCLAT to exempt parties from compliance with the requirement of any of the rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-20193, by virtue of Section 61(2) IBC read with Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules. In the event the appellant was correct in his assertion that a correct copy of the order was not available until 20-3-2020, the appellant would not have received a certified copy in spite of the application till such date and accordingly received the benefit of the suo motu order of this Court which came into effect on 15-3-2020. However, in the absence of an application for a certified copy, the appeal was barred by limitation much prior to the suo motu direction of this Court, even after factoring in a permissible fifteen days of condonation under Section 61(2). The Court is not empowered to condone delays beyond statutory prescriptions in special statutes containing a provision for limitation²². 19. Conclusions have been recorded in Para 33, which are as follows: "D. Conclusion 33. The answer to the two issues set out in Section C of the judgment-(i) when will the clock for calculating the limitation period run for proceedings under IBC; and (ii) is the annexation of a certified copy mandatory for an appeal to NCLAT against an order passed under IBC must be based on a h....