The NCLAT held that even with the provision of a free copy of its order by the NCLT Registry, it does not fulfil the mandatory requirement of a certified copy for filing an appeal.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench comprising Justices M. Venugopal and Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Members) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) was hearing an appeal and observed, despite the provision of a free copy of its order by the NCLT Registry, it does not fulfil the mandatory requirement of a certified copy for filing an appeal.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) heard the counsel for the petitioner/appellant regarding IA No.83/2024 in Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.23 of 2024 (Condone Delay Application). The petitioner/appellant claimed a delay of 12 days (as per them) or 26 days (as per the Office of the Registry) in filing the appeal against the Impugned Order dated 24.11.2022 in CP (IB) No.45/7/AMR/2020.
The petitioner's counsel argued that according to Rule 50(2) of the National Company Law Rules, 2016, the Registry should provide a free certified copy of the final order to the parties involved, and a certified copy could also be obtained by paying a fee as per the schedule of fees. Additionally, Rule 150 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 stipulates the manner in which orders must be pronounced and provided to the parties.
Referring to Rule 150(2), it was contended that every order of the Tribunal should be in writing, signed, and dated by the President or Members constituting the Bench. Furthermore, Rule 150(3) states that a certified copy of every order passed by the Tribunal shall be given to the parties.
The petitioner's counsel highlighted the delay in receiving the certified copy of the order, which affected the computation of the limitation period for filing the appeal. They argued that the limitation period should be calculated from the date of receipt of the certified copy, which was on 07.12.2022.
Moreover, the counsel mentioned the petitioner's illness during the period between 18.11.2022 and 06.01.2023, which hindered the timely examination of papers and approval of the memorandum of appeal.
The petitioner's counsel also emphasized their residence in Tenali, Andhra Pradesh, which required time to compile and collect case papers for preparation of the appeal in Chennai.
However, the respondent argued that the petitioner failed to apply for a certified copy of the Impugned Order, and thus cannot benefit from Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. They cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the obligation on the appellant to seek a certified copy through an application.
The respondent also contended that the delay exceeded the condonable period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, making the appeal time-barred.
The NCLAT bench observed, in the instant case:
"......the ‘Petitioner/Appellant’, had not applied for a ‘Certified Copy’ as per Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, contemplated under Rule 2(9) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, and has not obtained the ‘certified copy’, on payment of, ‘Requisite Fee’, as per ‘Rules’. Therefore, the ‘Free Cost copy’ of the ‘Impugned Order’ dated 24.11.2022 passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal’ in CP (IB) No.45/7/AMR/2020, is not a ‘Copy Certified’, contemplated as per Rule 22 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016."
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Condone Delay Application, noting that the petitioner failed to apply for a certified copy and filed the appeal beyond the statutory limitation period. The NCLAT observed, despite the provision of a free copy of its order by the NCLT Registry, it does not fulfil the mandatory requirement of a certified copy for filing an appeal.
Click here to Read/Download the Order