TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been filed by Respondent No.1 objecting to the condonation of delay. In the reply, it is pleaded that the present Appeals have been e-filed after the court working hour around 9 P.M. on 30.03.2026. It is submitted that filing affected by Appellant at 9 P.M. on 30.03.2026 cannot be treated as filing on 30.03.2026 itself. Relying on the Rule 14.2 of the Delhi High Court Electronic Filing Rules, it is pleaded that online e-filing carried out after 1600 hours on any day is to be treated as filing on the next working day. It is pleaded that the present Appeals thus, has to be held to be filed on 31.03.2026 which is beyond condonable period of 15 days. Respondent prays that the application for condonation of delay need to be rejected Appeals having been filed beyond condonable period. 2. We have heard Shri Krishnendu Dutta, Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant/ Appellant and Shri Himanshu Satija, Learned Counsel appearing for the Union Bank of India. 3. Filing of an Appeal in NCLAT is governed by NCLAT Rules 2016 framed by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 469 of the Companies Act, 2013. Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules provide 'presentation of appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rescribed under NCLAT Rules, 2016 along with the e-filing receipt. On 21.10.2022, another order was issued clarifying that period of limitation shall be computed from the date of the presentation of the Appeal as per Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. By subsequent order dated 24.12.2022 notified by the Registrar of NCLAT earlier order 21.10.2022 was withdrawn and it was notified that the limitation shall be computed with reference to the date of e-filing. We need to notice the order issued on 24.12.2022 by the NCLAT. It is useful to quote the entire order dated 24.12.2022 which is as follows:- "NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F.No. 23/4/2022-Estt./NCLAT Dated: 24th December, 2022 ORDER National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 (NCLAT Rules, 2016), Rule 22 provides for "Presentation of appeal", which is to be made at the filing counter of the Appellate Tribunal. As per Rule 103 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, Appellate Tribunal has also permitted filing of the Appeal or proceedings through electronic mode (e-filing). SOPs have also been issued with regard to e-filing. SOP dated 3rd January, 2021 further provides: - "It may be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order dated 24.12.2022 issued by the NCLAT under Rule 104 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, it is clarified that the limitation shall be computed from the date of e-filing. The present appeal has been filed on 30.03.2026 at 9.00 P.M. 7. The submission which has been advanced by Counsel for the Respondent is that e-filing at 9.00 P.M i.e. after working hours of NCLAT cannot be treated as e-filing on 30.03.2026. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on Rule which provide for working hours of the Tribunal i.e. which is provided under Rule 10 which Rule 10 is as follows:- "10. Working hours of office.- (1) The office of the Appellate Tribunal shall remain open on all working days from 09:30 A.M. to 6.00 Ρ.Μ. (2) The filing counter of the Registry shall be open on all working days from 10.30 AM to 5.00 P.M." 8. The question which has arisen for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether Appeal e-filed by the Appellant on 30.03.2026 at 9.00 P.M. i.e. after the working hours of the office can be treated to be filing on 30.03.2026 or it can be held to be filing on the next working day i.e. 31.03.2026 as contended by the Counsel for the Respondent. 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rules will come into force from the date notified by the High Court and will apply to such categories of cases and courts and tribunals as would be notified by the High Court." 13. The above Rule itself provide that Rules will come into force from the date notified by the High Court and will apply to such categories of cases and courts and tribunals as would be notified by the High Court. No material has been brought on the record by Respondent to indicate that High Court has notified the Rules to be applicable for e-filing in NCLAT. The Rules were notified on 22.02.2022. As noted above, NCLAT Rules 2016 have been framed under the Companies Act, 2013 and in exercise of power under Rules 103 and 104, orders have been issued by NCLAT for e-filing. Last such order was issued on 24.12.2022 by the NCLAT as extracted above. There being no Notification by the High Court that e-filing Rules is to apply to NCLAT, we are not persuaded to accept the submission of the Respondent that under Rule 14.2, e-filing after 1600Hrs has to be treated as e-filing on the next date. 14. The crucial question which has arisen for consideration as to what is the meaning of the word 'day'. P. Ramanatha ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunals, the manner in which justice is dispensed by them leaves much to be desired. Moreover, the remedy provided in the parent statutes, by way of an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, is too costly and inaccessible for it to be real and effective. Furthermore, the result of providing such a remedy is that the docket of the Supreme Court is crowded with decisions of Tribunals that are challenged on relatively trivial grounds and it is forced to perform the role of a first appellate court. We have already emphasised the necessity for ensuring that the High Courts are able to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of the Tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution. In R.K. Jain case [(1993) 4 SCC 119 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1128 : (1993) 25 ATC 464], after taking note of these facts, it was suggested that the possibility of an appeal from the Tribunal on questions of law to a Division Bench of a High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal falls, be pursued. It appears that no follow-up action has been taken pursuant to the suggestion. Such a measure would have improved matters considerably. Having regard to both the afore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hrs thereafter. It is held that the statutory period of limitation as provided by the Act cannot be taken away by the Rules framed by the High Court governing its procedure. In paragraph 6 and 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down following:- "6. The limitation provided by Section 81 of the Act expires on the 45th day from the date of election. The word "day" is not defined in the Act. It shall have to be assigned its ordinary meaning as understood in law. The word "day" as per English calendar begins at midnight and covers a period of 24 hours thereafter, in the absence of there being anything to the contrary in the context. (See Ramkisan Onkarmal Agrawal v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1994 Bom 87 : 1994 Mah LJ 369], AIR at p. 94, Municipal Council of Cuddalore v. S. Subrahmania Aiyar [16 MLJ 101 : ILR (1906) 29 Mad 326] and P. Ramanatha Aiyar, The Law Lexicon, pp. 470, 471.) Thus, the election petition could have been presented up to the midnight falling between 27-8-2003 and 28-8-2003. 7. The statutory period of limitation as provided by the Act cannot be taken away by the Rules framed by the High Court governing its procedure. The Rules framed in exercise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act, cannot be curtailed by making a provision in the Rules contrary to the Act itself. Ordinarily, no litigant and lawyer would like to delay the presentation till the fag end of the day and then present it at an odd time to the inconvenience of the Judge wherever he may be. However, exceptional situations cannot be completely ruled out. It would be better if the ministerial act of receiving the election petition presented to the High Court is left to the administrative or ministerial staff of the High Court either by clarifying or by making a suitable amendment in the Rules of the Patna High Court. 21. The above judgment is applicable in the facts of the present case with full force. 30.03.2026 was the 30th day and Appeals e-filed on 9.00 pm cannot be said to have not filed on 31.03.2026 since the day will end at immediately preceding 12.00 pm. 22. Even if for argument sake the submission of the Counsel for the Respondent is accepted that Rule 14.2 of the E-filing Rules of the High Court of Delhi are applicable, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 11, when power has been given to condone the delay upto 15 days under Section 61 of the IB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing counter." 21. Hence, by the order dated 24-12-2022, it was clarified that limitation shall be computed with reference to the date of e-filing while the physical copy would have to be filed within seven days of e-filing. The order clarifies that the requirement of filing appeals by the electronic mode shall continue together with the mandatory filing of appeals in terms of Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016." 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment thus, has noticed the orders issued by the NCLAT under Rules 103 and 104 of the NCLAT Rules and has applied the said orders while considering the question of delay in filing appeals under Section 61. The above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly indicate that the orders issued by the NCLAT on 24.12.2022 has been quoted with approval by the Supreme Court. 25. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the Appeals filed on 45th day by the Appellant i.e. on 30.03.2026 by 9.00 pm cannot be held to be filed beyond 15 days. In the application which has been filed by the Appellant, Appellant has given sufficient explanation for delay of 15 days which is reflected in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 ....