Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from an order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which dismissed appeals preferred by the appellant, a shareholder and suspended Managing Director of Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Limited (Corporate Debtor), as a consequence of dismissing applications for condonation of delay. The appellant had filed two appeals before the NCLAT against separate orders dated 20.07.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). One appeal challenged the dismissal of the appellant's application under Section 60(5) read with Section 35(1)(n) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), seeking directions regarding Resolution Plans, while the other appeal concerned the approval of a Resolution Plan under Section 30(6) and 31(1) of the IBC. The appeals were filed without applications for condonation of delay, with a declaration that they were within the limitation period under Section 61 of the IBC. Upon objections from respondents regarding limitation, the appellant filed condonation applications, asserting in one that the appeal was within limitation due to receipt of a free certified copy on 01.08.2023, and in the other that limitation should run from the date of knowledge on 07.08.2023. The NCLAT found that the appellant had not applied for certified copies, made mis-statements in the grounds of appeal regarding limitation and copy application, and took contradictory stands, leading to dismissal of the condonation applications and appeals. The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that the appeals were filed within a condonable period under Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 61(2) proviso of the IBC, allowing an additional 15 days, and that delay of ten days should be condoned as the time was spent seeking legal opinion. The respondents opposed, supporting the NCLAT's findings on suppression of facts and incorrect averments. The Supreme Court, after considering submissions and settled law, upheld the NCLAT's order, finding the reasons justified. The court noted that the appellant admitted not applying for certified copies, and limitation under Section 61 of the IBC starts from the day after order pronouncement. The appellant's conduct, including mis-statements and contradictory stands, warranted dismissal, and the delay was not condonable. The appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation.
Headnote
A) Insolvency Law - Appeals and Limitation - Section 61 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Condonation of Delay - Appellant filed appeals before NCLAT against NCLT orders without certified copies and with mis-statements regarding limitation - NCLAT dismissed condonation applications due to suppression of facts and incorrect averments - Supreme Court upheld dismissal, finding no justification for condoning delay as appellant failed to apply for certified copies and made contradictory stands (Paras 1-12). B) Insolvency Law - Procedural Compliance - Certified Copy Requirement - Section 61 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Limitation Computation - Appellant admitted not applying for certified copies of NCLT orders, claiming free copy availability and knowledge-based limitation - Court held limitation starts from day after order pronouncement, excluding date of pronouncement, and absence of certified copy application vitiates appeal filing - Delay not condonable due to appellant's conduct (Paras 3-12). C) Civil Procedure - Limitation Act - Section 12(3) Limitation Act, 1963 - Additional Time for Certified Copy - Appellant relied on Section 12(3) for excluding time taken to obtain certified copy - Court found appellant did not apply for certified copies, making reliance inapplicable - NCLAT's refusal to condone delay upheld as appellant's assertions were factually incorrect and contradictory (Paras 6-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was justified in dismissing the applications for condonation of delay and consequently the appeals as barred by limitation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, considering the appellant's conduct and statutory provisions
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding NCLAT's order as justified and in accordance with law, finding no grounds to condone the delay
Law Points
- Limitation period for appeals under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
- 2016
- condonation of delay under Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act
- 1963
- requirement of certified copy for filing appeals
- suppression of facts and mis-statements in pleadings
- discretionary power of appellate tribunal to condone delay
