To File An Appeal, A Certified Copy as Defined under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act is Required, Involving A Demand and Payment of a Requisite Fee
- REEDLAW
- Jul 10, 2024
- 3 min read
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench clarified that to file an appeal, a certified copy as defined under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act is required, involving a demand and payment of a requisite fee. A free copy provided under Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules did not fulfil this requirement.
In view of the divergent Order(s), delivered by the Hon'ble Member Justice M. Venugopal, (Judicial Member) and Hon’ble Mr. Jatindranath Swain, (Technical Member) of NCLAT, Chennai Bench, on 01.05.2024, the `Office of the Registry’ of 'NCLAT – Chennai Bench’, placed the entire record(s) in IA No. 158 / 2024 and in main Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 53 / 2024, together with the copies of the said Order(s), before the Hon'ble Chairperson of 'NCLAT - Principal Bench’, New Delhi, for constituting an appropriate Bench / nominating Hon'ble Third Member for rendering his opinion/decision, on the subject matter, in issue. The NCLAT, Principal Bench nominated Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) to render his opinion/decision, on the subject matter.
The NCLAT judgment addressed a legal question referred due to a dissenting opinion within a two-member bench regarding the interpretation of "Certified Copy" for filing appeals under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The bench determined that a "Certified Copy," as required by Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, must be obtained through a formal application and payment of the requisite fee as prescribed by Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, and could not be substituted by a free copy provided under Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules. This interpretation ensured the integrity of the appeal process and adherence to procedural requirements.
The Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 53 / 2024 arose due to a disagreement between two members of the bench regarding the term "Certified Copy" for the purpose of filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The matter, involving a dispute between the State Bank of India and India Power Corporation Limited, was initially heard by a two-member bench of the NCLAT. This bench questioned the judicial propriety of an order dated October 30, 2023, issued by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench, which had rejected an application under Section 7 of the IBC, thus denying the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor.
Alongside the appeal, a condonation of delay application (IA No. 158 / 2024) was filed, seeking to condone a delay of three days in filing the appeal. The key issue was whether a "Certified Copy" of the impugned order, as required under Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, was necessary for filing an appeal. Rule 22 mandates that every appeal be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order, but the term "Certified Copy" is defined in the NCLT Rules, 2016, and Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, not in the NCLAT Rules.
The larger bench of the NCLAT had previously addressed this issue in Munagala Roja Harsha Vardhini v. Vardhansmart Private Limited, REEDLAW 2024 NCLAT Chn 03608, drawing on the Supreme Court judgment in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Others, REEDLAW 2021 SC 10518. It was established that for the purpose of filing an appeal, a certified copy as defined under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act was required, involving a demand and payment of a requisite fee. A free copy provided under Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules did not fulfil this requirement.
In this case, the appellant did not apply for a certified copy within the prescribed limitation period, and therefore, could not benefit from the exclusion of time for obtaining the certified copy as provided under the Limitation Act. Consequently, the appeal was considered time-barred. One member of the bench opined that the free copy provided under Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules could not be substituted for a certified copy required under Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules and Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act. The dissent led to the matter being referred to a single member for resolution, who upheld the view that a certified copy obtained on demand and payment of a fee was mandatory for filing an appeal.
The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for filing appeals and clarified the necessity of obtaining a certified copy as per statutory provisions.
Subscribers can access the case, along with case analysis, case research, ratio decidendi, headnotes, briefs, caselaw cross-references, etc. etc.
Click on the Citation
Comments