Skip to main content

Insolvency: Certified copy of order must be applied for within 30 days of passing impugned order

Cause Title : M/s. Platinum Rent A Car (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Quest Offices Limited, Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.448/2022, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal At Chennai

Date of Judgment/Order : 12.01.2023

Corum : Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial) & Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)

Citied: 

Background

Appeal was filed against the order of the NCLT with an application for condonation of delay of 25 days. The Appellant had requested for condonation of delay based on the fact that while the order of the NCLT was passed on 08.06.2022, the ‘Certified Copy’ of the above ‘impugned order’ was applied on 21.07.2022 and the ‘Appellant’, was provided with a ‘Certified Copy of the same’, on 26.07.2022

Judgment

The appeal was rejected by the NCLAT on the ground that the ‘procedural formalities’ (including the ‘time limit’), enshrined under the ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016’, ought to be followed in true ‘letter and spirit’, because of the fact that ‘Speed’ is essence of the ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016’. As per Section 61, every appeal shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days.

The NCLAT observed that the ‘Appellate Tribunal’ has no ‘power’ to condone the ‘Delay’ after 30 + 15 = ‘45 Days’ and in the instant appeal came to be filed on 55th day, which is beyond the ‘permissible limit’, provided under the ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016’. This ‘Tribunal’, is not to extend its ‘Judicial arm of generosity, considering the fact that the ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016’, is a self-contained and inbuilt one. Also an invocation of Section 12 of the ‘Limitation Act’, 1963, will be of no assistance to the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’ because of the ‘overriding effect’ of the ‘ingredients of Section 238 of the ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016’.

Opinion

Though the conclusion drawn by the Ld. NCLAT is correct, the explanation is rather confusing. The Supreme Court in V Nagarajan vs SKS Ispat and Power Ltd.& Ors., has clearly stated that :-
  1. While filling a suit is a right, filling appeal is not.
  2. As per Rule 22(2) of the NCLT rules, an appeal from an order under the IBC will having to be accompanied with a certified copy of the impugned order which can however be waived at the discretion of the court.
  3. The certified copy have to be applied within 30 days of the order passed.
  4. The additional 15 days exemption allowed under Section 61 is entirely at the discretion of the court and applied only in the interest of justice being served.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more