AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
[ORAL JUDGMENT: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)]
This company appeal is listed as defective. But with the consent of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, it's taken upon on merits.
The Registry in its report of 24.02.2026, has notified the following defects:
"DEFECTS ; NUMBER OF DAYS DELAY IN RE-
PRESENTING THE APPEAL HAS TO BE MENTIONED IN
THE APPLICATIONS 2. NUMBER OF DAYS DELAY IN
FILING THE APPEAL HAS TO BE NOTED IN THE
APPLICATION 3 INDEX SHEET HAS NOT FURNISHED
PROPERLY 4. COUNSEL HAS TO SIGN IN
DECLARATION FORM"
Major defect raised pertains to non-mentioning of the number of days of delay in filing of the company appeal, and in refiling the Appeal in the respective applications. Those defects may not be so vital to create any impediment for deciding the company appeal, because the Registry in its report has determined the number of days of delay and has given its defect sheet, reporting that there is a delay of 57 days in filing of the company appeal and 27 days in refiling of the appeal.
By virtue of the company appeal in question, the Appellant challenges the impugned order of 17.11.2023, as it was passed in I.A. No.1217/(CHE)/2022 in IBA.No.1045&1169/(CHE)/2019, by NCLT Chennai. The consequential effect of the order passed by the Ld. Tribunal, which is under challenge in the instant company appeal has been, that all the applications that were taken up before the Ld. Tribunal on the appointed date, couple of the applications were disposed of, but the challenge is to the orders passed in I.A.No.1217/(CHE)/2022, is concerned, which related to the relief seeking a direction to the Liquidator to consider the claim of the Appellant dated 01.03.2022. The same has been decided holding thereof that the delay that has chanced would stand condoned and accordingly the determination made of the claim raised was held to be valid.
Accordingly, based on it, the corresponding IA No.1312&1217/(CHE)/2023 were accordingly disposed off, with the following observations:
"Delay condoned in view of the reasons stated in the application. It is an admitted of the parties that after the order of the Labour Court, Corporate Debtor filed a writ petition which was dismissed. The Applicant was not take in employment after the order of the Labour Court. The Respondent / Liquidator has given the basis of the amounts which he calculated in terms of the order of the Labour Court adding the interest and the gratuity dues. The record shows that the Applicant was paid the gratuity dues which he also acknowledged. We are in agreement with the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Liquidator that the Applicant wrongly calculated his date of retirement as 30.06.2022."
Though the above extract at the moment may not be necessary for the purposes of deciding the instant company appeal, when we are considering it, in the light of the pleadings raised by the Appellant himself with regards to the aspect of delay.
As far as the delay in refiling is concerned, the Registry has reported that there's a delay of 27 days in refiling. Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant on the delay condonation in refiling of the company appeal, and having considered the grounds taken in para 2 of the applications, the delay refiling would stand condoned. Accordingly, the IA No. 323 & 324/2026 would stand allowed, and delay in refiling would stand condoned.
Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant on the Condone Delay Application, i.e., IA No. 322/2026, where the Appellant has sought a condonation of 57 days of delay, as reported by the Registry, which has not been disputed by the Appellant.
According to Appellants own case, the impugned order was passed on 17.11.2023 and it was uploaded by the Ld. NCLT on the NCLT's website on 05.01.2024. The Appellant had applied for the certified copy of the order by filing of an application only on 19.01.2024, which was shown to have been issued to the Appellant on 08.02.2024 and thereafter the Appellant has preferred the present appeal on 12.02.2024.
Since the order was delivered pronounced on 17.11.2023 and the Appellant had been participating in the proceedings of the respective IAs, which has been decided by impugned order, filing of an application for procuring the certified copy on 19.01.2024 itself will not entitle the Appellant to be granted the benefit of limitation since having not applied for procuring the certified copy within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 61 of the Code.
Hence, if we determine the number of days of delay from the date of pronouncement of the order, i.e., 17.11.2023, the appeal would be suffering from a delay of 57 days, as it has been reported by the Registry and the same would be barred by limitation. Besides that, the ground, which has be taken by the Appellant in para 2 of the supporting application for seeking condonation of delay, that itself doesn't seem to be justified to condone the delay beyond the upper limit prescribed after including condonable period under Section 61 (2) of the Code.
Even the reason is not satisfactory, for the reason being that in the paragraph, it has been contended by the Appellant, that after the arguments of 17.11.2023, the judgment was reserved for orders on the same day, and the copy of the order was available on 05.01.2024 in IBA.No.1045&1169/(CHE)/2019. Alleging that as the ground for seeking condonation of delay, we find no justification in the reasons for delay, for the reason being that at least when the proceedings, after conclusion of arguments has taken place on 17.11.2023 in the presence of Appellant in which he had participate it was all the more necessary for the Appellant who was the Applicant to the proceedings of the IA, to have atleast filed an application for seeking the certified copy within the reasonable time frame, i.e., within limitation for filing of the company appeal and he couldn't have waited to get the certified copy till he could gather the knowledge from IBA.No.1045&1169/(CHE)/2019. In fact, the Appellant himself has slept over his rights by not being diligent in getting the certified copy of the order in proceeding in which he was participating and when the order itself was said to have been pronounced in his presence on 17.11.2023.
Since, the impugned order was pronounced on 17.11.2023 in proceedings in which the Appellant participated. The delay for him would be determined from the date of pronouncement and not from the date of uploading, and since the Appellant himself has applied for obtaining the certified copy only on 19.01.2024, that is much after the expiry of the period of limitation and filing the company appeal on 12.022024. The limitation, if it is computed from 17.11.2023, it will be beyond the limitation prescribed under the statute, hence the appeal would be barred by limitation which under law is not extendable under general law of limitation and couldn't be condoned beyond the condonable period, i.e., maximum of 45 days. Hence, the IA No. 322/2026 would stand rejected. And as a consequence, to the rejection of the Condone Delay Application, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.106/2026 would stand 'dismissed'. All pending interlocutory applications would stand closed.