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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

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