AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Oral: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):
The Appellant has preferred the instant Company Appeal, being aggrieved as against the impugned order of 19.09.2024, that was passed by the Learned NCLT Division Bench, Chennai in IA(IBC)/1593/CHE/2024, which was preferred in CP(IB) No. 1226/CHE/2018. The consequential effect of the Impugned Order has been that, the application, being IA No. 1593/CHE/2024, had been dismissed on the ground, owing to the order that has been already passed in IA No. 622/2022, the said IA(IBC)/1593/CHE/2024, was observed to be having no cause of action for setting aside the ex-parte order.
The Company Appeal when it was preferred before this Tribunal, it was e-filled before the Registry of this Tribunal on 25.11.2024. The Company Appeal was accompanied with a Condone Delay application being IA No. 1102/2025, where the Appellant has sought a condonation of 37 days of delay that has chanced in preferring the appeal.
Owing to the fact that, the reasons as assigned in the application, thus preferred for seeking condonation of delay in filing up the Appeal, was assigned by the Appellant in its para 2 (i) and (j). The ground taken by the Appellant for seeking condonation of 37 days of delay is on the ground that, the limitation has been computed from 25.10.2024, that is the date when the Appellant has actually received the certified copy of the order and the Appeal having been filed within 30 days thereafter that is on 25.11.2024.
He submitted that, it was well within the period of limitation as prescribed under the statute. For the purposes of better determination of the reasons given in the Condone Delay application and the grounds taken by the Appellant, we had passed an order on 25.08.2025, calling for a report from the Registry of the NCLT, as to when did the Appellant had actually applied for the certified copy and when did she actually approached the NCLT for receiving the certified copy of the order. In compliance of the order dated 25.08.2025, a report has been submitted by the Registry of the NCLT.
The relevant part of the report is extracted here under:
2)It is stated that the Order in IA (IBC)/1593/CHE/2024 in CP(IB)/1226(CHE)2018 was passed by this Tribunal (Division Bench Court-I) on 19.09.2024 which was uploaded in NCLT website on 23.09.2024. The counsel for the applicant applied for certified copy of the order on 24.09.2024 and the certified copy of the Order was received by the applicant counsel from the Tribunal on 25.10.2024.
3)The procedure regarding issue of certified copies to the applicants/litigants in the Tribunal has been streamlined now and copies are issued to the copy applicants within a period of 3 to 4 days from the date of receipt of copy applications.
It was reported by the Registry that, the procedure adopted by the Tribunal for issuance of the certified copy is that, the certified copy is prepared within a couple of days from the date of filing of the copy application. Owing to the aforesaid fact, the following dates become relevant for the consideration of the Condone Delay application.
The Impugned Order was passed on 19.09.2024.
The copy of the order was ready on 19.09.2024.
The copy of the order was uploaded in NCLT website on 23.09.2024.
The Appellant applied for the certified copy of the order on 24.09.2024.
The appellant received the certified copy of the order on 25.10.2024 and e-filed the appeal on 25.11.2024.
The Appellant has contended in the delay condonation application that, the delay has to be determined from the date when he actually got the certified copy of the order i.e., on 25.10.2024 and not from the date of uploading of the order i.e., on 23.09.2024. And that is the reason which has been given by the Appellant in Para 2 (i) in the application for seeking condonation of 37 days of delay that has chanced in preferring the appeal.
The aspect of limitation is self contained under sub-section 2 of Section 61 of I&B Code, which prescribes a strict adherence of the aspect of limitation in preferring the Appeal, as against the Impugned Order passed by the NCLT by invoking the appellate jurisdiction under Section 61. Initially there had been a different parameters adopted for the purposes of determination of limitation, i.e., from the date of the Impugned Order or from the date of uploading of the impugned order. However, the said controversy has been ultimately resolved and laid to rest that, the date of limitation would be determined from the date when the order is uploaded on the website of the Tribunal and falls to be within the public domain, which in the instant case would be on 23.09.2024.
Admittedly, the Appellant had filed an application for procuring the certified copy of the order on 24.09.2024, but however we see no logic or reason nor the same has been taken or explained in the application for condone delay application, as to why did the Appellant waited for and received the certified copy of the order only on 25.10.2024. The Appellant has to blame himself for applying for the certified copy on 24.09.2024 and then sitting over for a period of 30 days for getting the certified copy from the Registry of the NCLT and there is no reason as to why the delay has chanced from 24.09.2024, i.e., when the Appellant applied for the copy till 25.10.2024, i.e., when she received the certified copy of the order. The appellant has to blame himself that they had chosen to get certified copy of the impugned order issued after 30 days from the date of its application and in the light of the report which has been submitted by the Joint Registrar of NCLT on 28.08.2025, the part of which has already been extracted above.
After the application was submitted by the Appellant to get the certified copy on 24.09.2024, and when the copy was ready within a couple of days as per the streamlining procedure adopted by the NCLT, if the Appellant has chosen not to receive the certified copy of the order within a reasonable time frame, the Appellant has to blame himself for the delay of 30 days in receiving the certified copy of the order only on 25.10.2024. Not only this, Appellant after having received the certified copy of the impugned order admittedly on 25.10.2024, she had not chosen to file the Company Appeal till 25.11.2024, when it was e-filled before the Registry. There would be yet again a delay of about 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order i.e., 25.10.2024, till its e-filling of the Appeal on 25.11.2024.
If an overall limitation is determined from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order till the date of its e-filling, which has to be construed in the light of the date of uploading of the judgment i.e., on 23.09.2024. The period of limitation has to be construed from the date of uploading of the impugned order i.e., 23.09.2024, and the Appeal, which has been preferred by e-filling of the same on 25.11.2024, that means approximately after 62 days of delay, which is much beyond the permissible 45 days as prescribed under sub-section 2 of Section 61.
Impugned Order was uploaded in NCLT website on 23.9.2025 – 30 days – 23.10.2025
Additional 15 days ends on 07.11.2025
Appeal filed on 25.11.2024 – Delay of 17 days beyond upperlimit of 45 days
Hence, the reason for delay, which has been given in Para 2 (i) by the Appellant for seeking condonation of delay is not justifiable and the latitude of additional 15 days of delay has contemplated under sub-section 2 of Section 61 cannot be extended to the Appellant if the delay is determined from 23.09.2024, till the e-filing of the Appeal on 25.11.2024, it will be barred by limitation. Hence, the delay condonation application being IA No. 1102/2025 would stand rejected. Consequently, the Appeal too being Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 134/2025, would stand dismissed.