Case Note & Summary
The appellants, holding 24.89% shares in Upper Assam Plywood Products Private Limited, filed a winding-up petition before the NCLT, Guwahati Bench, which was dismissed on 25.10.2019. They applied for a certified copy on 21.11.2019 (or 22.11.2019) and received it on 19.12.2019. Despite this, they filed an appeal before the NCLAT only on 20.07.2020, along with an application for condonation of delay. The NCLAT dismissed both the condonation application and the appeal as time-barred, holding that it had no power to condone delay beyond 45 days after the limitation period. The Supreme Court upheld this decision. The Court clarified that under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, limitation runs from the date the copy of the order is made available, not from the date of the order. Here, limitation expired on 02.02.2020, and the condonable period of 45 days expired on 18.03.2020. The Supreme Court's order dated 23.03.2020 extending limitation due to COVID-19 applied only to the period of limitation, not to the period for condonation of delay. Since the appellants had already allowed both periods to expire before the lockdown, they could not benefit from the extension. The Court emphasized the maxim Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt and dismissed the appeals.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Computation of Limitation - Section 421(3) Companies Act, 2013 - Period of limitation for appeal runs from date copy of order is made available to aggrieved person, not from date of order - Appellants received certified copy on 19.12.2019, limitation expired on 02.02.2020, condonable period expired on 18.03.2020 - Appeal filed on 20.07.2020 was beyond both periods - Held that NCLAT correctly dismissed appeal as time-barred (Paras 12-17). B) COVID-19 Pandemic - Extension of Limitation - Supreme Court Order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Motu WP(C) No.3/2020 - Extension of limitation applies only to period of limitation, not to period for condonation of delay - Appellants failed to file appeal within limitation or condonable period before lockdown - Held that lockdown extension cannot revive already expired period for condonation (Paras 18-19). C) Legal Maxims - Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt - Law assists vigilant, not those who sleep on rights - Appellants waited 27 days to apply for certified copy and further delay in filing appeal - Held that appellants not entitled to equitable relief (Para 19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 runs from the date of the order or from the date a copy is made available; and whether the Supreme Court's order dated 23.03.2020 extending limitation due to COVID-19 pandemic also extends the period within which delay can be condoned under the proviso to Section 421(3).
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the NCLAT order that the appeal was time-barred and that the delay could not be condoned as it exceeded the maximum condonable period of 45 days under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Law Points
- Limitation for appeal under Section 421(3) Companies Act
- 2013 runs from date copy made available
- not date of order
- Appellate Tribunal's power to condone delay is limited to 45 days beyond limitation
- Supreme Court's lockdown order extended only limitation period
- not period for condonation of delay
- Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt
