TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1512
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant by invoking the provisions contained under Section 61 of I & B Code, 2016, being aggrieved against the impugned order of 01.08.2025 that was passed on IA No. 323/2025, as preferred in CP (IB) No. 15/BB/2023, passed by the Ld. NCLT Bengaluru Bench, which had dismissed the said application filed by the Appellant. The said order was delivered in 2 parts, the substantive part of which, as per the Appellant, was uploaded on 26.09.2025. 3. The application thus preferred under Section 35(1)(n) of the I & B Code, 2016, had sought for a direction to Respondent No. 1 or to any other person claiming through or under them to desist from, in any manner, dealing with the secured assets as detailed in the schedule of properties accompanying the application and to preserve the "status quo" in relation to the property. The Ld. Tribunal, after considering the said application on merits, has observed that the application thus preferred, being IA No. 323/2025, doesn't merit consideration. 4. Similarly, in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.598/2025, the Appellant challenges the order passed on 01.08.2025 on IA No. 324/2025 in CP (IB) No.15/BB/2023, dismissing the said application. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t matter of consideration in respect of Condonation of Delay in both the company appeals, would be, as to what would be the actual date of publication of the order, which Appellant contends to have been done on 26.09.2025, and whether the period of limitation will be computed from the date of pronouncement of the order or from the date of its uploading. 8. When the instant company appeals was taken up, the Respondent No. 1 were represented by the respective counsels and notice was issued to Respondent No. 2 on the Condone Delay Application. The applications seeking condonation of delay has been objected by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents by filing an objection, which has been argued otherwise by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant based upon the additional documents, which has been filed by the Appellant in support of the Condone Delay Application. 9. The arguments of the Appellant made on the basis of the additional documents which have been filed along with the memo dated 21.01.2026 is that, as a matter of fact the impugned order of 01.08.2025 was never uploaded by the Ld. Tribunal on 01.08.2025 and it was actually uploaded on 26.09.2025, and as such the delay in filing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umvent the aspect of limitation which in the instant case commenced from 02.08.2025 the day immediately after the date of pronouncement. He has stated that as per the particulars as it has been supplied and made available to them from the Registry of the Ld. Tribunal, the order was actually shown to have been uploaded on 07.08.2025, and in relation thereto, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent had placed reliance on the "Case History" which is available in the official website of the Registry of the Ld. Tribunal. 14. Based upon the said 'Case History', he submits that, the date of the order happens to be of 01.08.2025, and that the limitation for all practical purposes would commence from 02.08.2025, which would expire after 30 days, on 31.08.2025, and that the condonable period of 15 days prescribed under the proviso to Section 31(2) of the I & B Code, 2016, would also expire on 15.09.2025. He further submits that, if the certified copy of the order as annexed with the appeal itself clearly shows that the Appellant had applied for the certified copy of the order on 29.09.2025, after expiry of 59 days from the date of the pronouncement of order, which is beyond the expiry ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nounced or uploaded on the website." "26. However, where the judgment was pronounced in open court, the period of limitation starts running from that very day. The appellant is however entitled to seek relief under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act for excluding the period during which the certified copy was under preparation on an application preferred by that party." 17. What he intends to argue from the principles propounded by the said paragraphs as extracted above, is that in those cases where the order is pronounced in the open court, the limitation triggers from that date, even if the order has been uploaded at a later stage and that, it will be always the date of the pronouncement, which will be taken as to be the basis for the determination of limitation. 18. Taking its logic from the judgment of Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs Vistra Itcl (India) Limited, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent had argued that, the order was pronounced on a particular date in the proceedings participated in which the Appellant and since the Appellant did not apply for getting the certified copy of the order within the prescribed period of limitation, the limitation has to commence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limitation: "12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings.-(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded. (2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded. (3) Where a decree or order is appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed, or where an application is made for leave to appeal from a decree or order, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment shall also be excluded. (4) In computing the period of limitation for an application to set aside an award, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. Explanation.-In computing under this section the time requisite for obtaining a copy of a decree or an order, any time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy thereof i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt, and yet chose to file for a certified copy after five months of the pronouncement of the order." 22. And if we look into the ratio provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment, it was observed therein that an appeal under Section 61 of IBC is expected to be preferred before the expiry of period of limitation, from which the 'time requisite' for obtaining the certified copy is to be excluded. But, the said facility of excluding the period spent in obtaining the certified copy of the order cannot be extended if no application for a certified copy has been made before the expiry of the statutory period of limitation. Thus, in other words, it could be said that the time period, which is taken by the court to prepare a decree (or) an order, cannot be sought to be excluded by invoking Section 12, in the light of its explanation, unless the application to obtain the copy is actually made, within 30 days of the date of pronouncement of the order. 23. It was further observed in the said judgment that a right to receive a free copy under Section 420 (3) of the Companies Act, 2016, will not obviate the obligation on part of the Appellant to seek a certified copy o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied upon for exclusion of time for which reliance is placed on the judgment of this Tribunal in Gaurav Agarwal Vs CA Devang P Sampat Liquidator of Maa Mahamaya Steels Pvt. Ltd in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 916 of 2022 which is reproduced below: "6. The present is a case where the Appellant has applied for the certified copy of the order on 15.06.2022 i.e. after expiry of period of 30 days of limitation for filing an appeal. When application for obtaining certified copy of the order is applied after the period of limitation, Appellant is not entitled for benefit under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. Bombay High Court in "Rajanarayan Singh Avadhraj Singh V. Smt Vidhyadevi, 2003 AIHC at page 3742 (Bom)" has held that where an applicant slept for an entire period of limitation for filing an appeal and thereafter filed an application for certified copy of the judgment and decree, the benefit of Section 12(2) cannot be availed. 12. ... certified copy is claimed to be applied by the Appellant on 15.06.2022 i.e. after expiry of limitation. We, thus, are of the view that present appeal has been filed beyond 45 days from date of the order dated 06.05.2022 and delay of more than 15 days ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....admittedly done on 07.08.2025, the said uploading could not have been in a piecemeal manner. Particularly when the order of 01.08.2025 was a composite order deciding the proceedings before the Ld. NCLT, and, there was no occasion for the Ld. Tribunal to only upload part of the order dated 01.08.2025 on 07.08.2025, because as per the prevalent norms, the order will have to be uploaded as a whole. 28. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, while elaborating his argument, has submitted that when the order was uploaded on 07.08.2025, he found that the full order had not been uploaded and hence he filed the application on 08.08.2025 before the Registry and that submission of his application on 08.08.2025 may be taken as to be a proof that the order was not uploaded by the Ld. Tribunal on 07.08.2025 as pleaded by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent. This argument of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, based upon his representation of 08.08.2025, cannot be accepted by this Appellate Tribunal for the purposes to construe, commencement of limitation from 26.09.2025 for the reason being that, such type of representation is not a concept which is available under law in a judicial proceeding, bec....