The NCLAT ruled that the limitation period for filing the Appeal commences from the date of pronouncement of the order, not from the date of receipt or uploading of the order.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench comprising Justice M. Venugopal and Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Members) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) was hearing an appeal on the ground of limitation and held that the limitation period for filing the Appeal commenced from the date of pronouncement of the Impugned Order. The Three-Member Bench rejected the Appellant's contention that the period should start from the date of receipt or uploading of the order.
The Appellant filed an Appeal against the Impugned Order dated 23.12.2022 in IA(IBC) No.203/KOB/2022 in CP(IBC) No.18/KOB/2021 at NCLT, Kochi Bench. Alongside, 3 Interlocutory Applications (IA) were filed. IA No.375/2023 sought to condone a delay of 8 days in the representation of papers, IA No.383/2023 sought to condone a delay of 14 days in filing the Appeal, and IA No.384/2023 sought an interim stay of the Impugned Order.
On 24.04.2023, IA No.375/2023 was allowed, condoning the 8-day delay. However, IA No.383/2023 was dismissed for exceeding the time limit under section 61(2) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appeal CA (AT) (Ins) No.99/2023 was also dismissed as time-barred.
The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against the NCLAT order of 24.04.2023. The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT order on 25.09.2023, remitting the proceedings back for fresh consideration.
In the renewed hearing, the Appellant argued that the clock for filing the Appeal should start from 27.12.2022 when he received the Certified Copy or at the latest, from 26.12.2022 when the order was uploaded. He also cited reasons for the 14-day delay, mainly related to document retrieval and remote location.
The Respondent contested, arguing the limitation period should start from the date of pronouncement and questioning the credibility of the Appellant's reasons for delay.
The Appellate Tribunal examined the arguments and upheld the original decision, stating that the date of pronouncement should be considered for computing the limitation period. Additionally, it found the Appellant's reasons for delay insufficient.
Considering the objective of the IBC for timely resolution, the Tribunal dismissed the Application, finding it devoid of merit. Consequently, the Company Appeal was rejected, and the connected IA for Stay was closed.
Subscribers can access the case, along with case analysis, case research, ratio decidendi, headnotes, briefs, caselaw cross-references, etc. Click on the Citation.
The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the limitation period for filing the Appeal commenced from the date of pronouncement of the Impugned Order. The Appellant's contention that the period should start from the date of receipt or uploading of the order was rejected. Further, the reasons provided by the Appellant for the delay in filing the Appeal were deemed insufficient. The NCLAT emphasized the importance of adhering to strict timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to ensure timely resolution of insolvency matters.