AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
‘Heard’, the Learned Counsel for the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’, in I.A. No. 41 of 2022, in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 20 of 2022.
According to the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’/ ‘Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.’, the Instant ‘Appeal’, came to be filed on 03/01/2022, with a ‘Delay’ of ‘394 days’ and from the ‘Impugned Order’, on 29/01/2021, within ’30 days’, the ‘Appeal’ was to be preferred on 27/02/2023.
In the Instant Case, the ‘Appeal’, was filed on 31/01/2022, with a delay of ‘394 Days’. As a matter of fact, the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’, seeks ‘Reliance’ upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court Order in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW (c) No. 3 of 2020, seeking ‘Exclusion’ of ‘Period’, for the purpose of ‘Computation of Limitation’.
In this connection, when this ‘Tribunal’, posed a query to the Learned Counsel for the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’, as to how the aforesaid Supreme Court Order will come to the ‘Aid and Rescue’ of the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’, the Learned Counsel fairly submitted that despite the ‘Covid 19 Pandemic Lockdown’, there is a ‘Delay’, in the Instant ‘Appeal’ which was admittedly filed, after the ‘Expiry’ of the ‘Limitation’ period, as envisaged under Section 61 of the ‘Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016’.
To be noted that the ‘Respondent No. 1’/’Resolution Professional’ has come out with a ‘Response’/ ‘Counter’/ ‘Reply’ to IA No. 40 of 2022, in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 20 of 2022, inter alia, to the fact that no ‘Appeal’, is ‘Maintainable’/ ‘Perceivable’, before this ‘Tribunal’, within the ‘Production of a Certified Copy’ of the ‘Impugned Order’, as per Rule 22 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016. Moreover, the ‘Appellant’, is not entitled to get the benefit of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Order, in ‘Suo moto’ Writ Petition, extending Period of Writ Petition. In reality, the Instant Condone Delay Application is to be ‘Dismissed’ in ‘Limine’.
It is to be pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of the V. Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd, vide, Civil Appeal No. 3327 of 2020, dated 22/10/2021, at Paragraph No. 22 had observed as under:
“While it is true that the Tribunals, and even this Court, may choose to exempt Parties from compliance with this procedural requirement in the interest of Substantial Justice, as re-iterated in Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules, the discretionary waiver does not act as an automatic exception where Litigants make no efforts to pursue a timely resolution of their grievance. The Appellant having failed to apply for a certified copy, rendered the Appeal filed before the NCLAT as clearly barred by Limitation.”
As far as the present case is concerned, even though the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’, has preferred the ‘Appeal’, only on 03/01/2022 with a Admitted Delay of ‘394 days’ and also the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’, falls back upon the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Suo moto’ Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, yet this ‘Tribunal’ is of the considered view that in the absence of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Order, coming to the rescue of the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’, on facts, as observed by this ‘Tribunal’ and also the ‘Petitioner’/ ‘Appellant’, has filed the Instant Appeal, without ‘Production’ of Certified Copy(although sought dispensing with the Production of Certified Copy through IA No. 40 of 2022), yet this ‘Tribunal’, comes to a Resultant Conclusion, the Instant Appeal is ‘per se’, not maintainable and clearly ‘Barred’ by time. Resultantly, the Instant IA No. 41 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 20 of 2022, is ‘Sans Merits’.
In fine, the I.A. No. 41 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 20 of 2022 is ‘Dismissed’. ‘No Costs’.
Consequent to the ‘Dismissal’ of I.A. No. 41 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 20 of 2022, the Main Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 20 of 2022, is not entertained by this ‘Tribunal’ and the same is hereby ‘Rejected’. ‘No Costs’.