NCLAT (2024.03.01) in Chanderpati Vs. Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 691 of 2023 & I.A. No.2302, 2303 of 2023] held that;
(i) the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of pronouncement of the order in the cases covered by the Code
(ii) It is mandatory to annex the certified copy of the impugned order with the memorandum of appeal
(iii) the Tribunal may exempt the parties from compliance with the procedural requirement in the interest of substantial justice as reiterated in Rule 14
(iv) There is no automatic exemption where the litigants makes no efforts to pursue a timely resolution of their grievance.
(v) The Appellant having failed to apply for a certified copy, rendered the appeal filed before the NCLAT as clearly barred by limitation.
(vi) It is not open to the person aggrieved under the Code to await the receipt of free certified copy under Section 420(3) of the Act r/w Rule 50 and prevent limitation from running
(vii) Litigant has to file the appeal within 30 days which can be extended upto a period of 15 days on showing sufficient cause which cannot be condoned thereafter (viii) Limitation cease to run from the date of -e-filing
(ix) In order to take advantage of Section 12(2) of the Act 1963, certified copy has to be applied during the currency of the period prescribed for filing an appeal. .
Excerpts of the order;
In brief, Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) was developing a residential township under the name of ‘Palm City’ in Karnal, Haryana involving a total of 377 Plots, a Nursing Home, Nursery School, and a Commercial Land.
# 2. SE Investment Limited now known as Paisalo Digital Ltd. (Financial Creditor) filed an application bearing (IB)-609(ND)/2017 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short ‘Code’) before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court No. II) against M/s Soni Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) which was admitted on 27.02.2018, Manoj Kulshreshta was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional and later on confirmed as Resolution Professional (in short ‘RP’).
# 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the RP filed an application bearing CA No. 747/ND/2018 under Section 30(6) and 31(1) of the Code for approval of the resolution plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant (Srijan Infra LLP) before the Adjudicating Authority.
# 4. The Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 10.06.2022 allowed the application bearing CA No. 747/ND/2018 and approved the resolution plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant.
# 5. Various Interlocutory Applications were also filed by the Home Buyers and others before the Adjudicating Authority in (IB)-609(ND)/2017 raising various issues.
# 6. Basically, aggrieved against the order dated 10.06.2022, passed in CA No. 747/ND/2018, by which the Adjudicating Authority had approved the resolution plan of the Resolution Applicant, various appeals have been filed before this Tribunal and at present a batch of thirteen appeals are pending. The detail of the appeals is as under:-
7. Although these appeals are pending for some time but no effective order has been passed in these appeals as yet.Counsel appearing on behalf of the RP has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of these appeals, inter alia, on the ground that since the impugned order was passed on 10.06.2022 and the period of 30 days prescribed for filing the appeal had expired on 10.07.2022 and a further period of 15 days had also expired on 25.07.2022 but these appeals have been filed without annexing the certified copy of the impugned order and the certified copies of the impugned order were applied much after the expiry of period of 45 days, therefore, these appeals are not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
# 10. To support his arguments, he has relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal rendered in the cases of
V. Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited & Ors. (2022) 2 SCC 244,
Sanket Kumar Agarwal & Anr. Vs. APG Logistics, 2023 SCC Online SC 976,
Jindal Power Limited. Vs. Dushyan C. Dave, Liquidator of Shirpur Power Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 11 of 2023 and
Gaurav Agarwal Vs. CA Devang P. Sampat, Liquidator of MAA Mahamaya Steels Pvt.Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 916 of 2022.
# 31. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
# 32. Appeals before the Appellate Authority are filed under Section 61 of the Code. The relevant part of Section 61 of the Code is reproduced as under:-
“61. Appeals and Appellate Authority. -
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013 (18 of 2013), any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days.”
# 33. The above provisions have in fact four parts (i) any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority may file an appeal (ii) the statutory right of an appeal can be exercised within a period of 30 days (iii) if the appeal is not filed within a period of 30 days, it can still be filed up to a period of 15 days but after assigning a sufficient cause (iv) no appeal can be filed after the expiry of 15 days.
# 34. The procedure for filing an appeal is laid down in Part III ‘Institution of appeals-procedure’ of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 (in short ‘Rules’) in which Rule 22 and 31 are relevant and are reproduced as under:-
“22. Presentation of appeal.- (1) Every appeal shall be presented in Form NCLAT-1 in triplicate by the appellant or petitioner or applicant or respondent, as the case may be, in person or by his duly authorised representative duly appointed in this behalf inthe prescribed form with stipulated fee at the filing counter and non-compliance of this may constitute a valid ground to refuse to entertain the same.
(2) Every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order.
(3) All documents filed in the Appellate Tribunal shall be accompanied by an index in triplicate containing their details and the amount of fee paid thereon.
(4) Sufficient number of copies of the appeal or petition or application shall also be filed for service on the opposite party as prescribed.
(5) In the pending matters, all other applications shall be presented after serving copies thereof in advance on the opposite side or his advocate or authorised representative.
(6) The processing fee prescribed by the rules, with required number of envelopes of sufficient size and notice forms as prescribed shall be filled along with memorandum of appeal.
31. Interlocutory applications.- Every interlocutory application for stay, direction, condonation of delay, exemption from production of copy of order appealed against or extension of time prayed for in pending matters shall be in Form NCLAT-2 and the requirements prescribed in that behalf shall be complied with by the applicant, besides filing a affidavit supporting the application.”
# 35. As per Rule 22, every appeal has to be presented in Form NCLAT-1 and as per Rule 22(2) every appeal is to be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. Rule 31 pertains to the Interlocutory Applications which may be for stay, direction, dispensing with, condonation of delay or calling of records and all such applications are to be filed in Form NCLAT-2. 36. Chapter- I of the Rules deals with definitions, forms etc. in which Rule 11, 14 and Rule 15 are relevant which are reproduced as under:-
“11. Inherent powers.- Noting in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Appellate Tribunal to make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Appellate Tribunal.
14. Power to exempt.- The Appellate Tribunal may on sufficient cause being shown, exempt the parties from compliance with any requirement of these rules and may give such directions in matters of practice and procedure, as it may consider just and expedient on the application moved in this behalf to render substantial justice.
15. Power to extend time.- The Appellate Tribunal may extend the time appointed by these rules or fixed by any order, for doing any act or taking any proceeding, upon such terms, if any, as the justice of the case may require, and any enlargement may be ordered, although the application therefore is not made until after the expiration of the time appointed or allowed. ”
# 37. Rule 11 talks of inherent powers of the Appellate Tribunal and Rule 15 about the extension of time appointed either under the Rules or fixed by the order of the Tribunal. Rule 14 gives the power to the Appellate Tribunal to exempt and has the following parts
(i) for seeking exemption from compliance with the requirement of the Rules, the Appellant has to assign sufficient cause
(ii) the Appellate Tribunal may give directions as it may consider just and expedient to render substantial justice and
(iii) the power to exempt has to exercised on the application moved in that behalf.
# 38. Rule 22(2) has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Nagarajan (Supra) and it has been held that filing of the certified copy of the impugned order is mandatory, however, Rule 14 gives the power to the Appellate Tribunal to exempt the parties from complying with any of the requirement of the Rules on sufficient cause being shown and on the application moved in that regard.
# 39. In these cases, appeals have been filed under Section 61 of the Code, some of the appeals have been filed within the prescribed period of 30 days, some of the appeals have been filed within the extended period of 15 days alongwith an application for seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order and an application for seeking condonation of delay and some of the appeals have been filed either within 30 days or within the extended period of 15 days but without an application for seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order, however, out of 13 appeals, in one appeal it is alleged that the certified copy was applied within the period of 30 days but in rest of the appeals it is beyond the period of even 45 days.
# 40. It is pertinent to mention that Appeals No. 691 of 2023, 757 & 758 of 2022, 1015 of 2022 and 1079 of 2023 (four appeals) have been filed within the period of 30 days without certified copy of the impugned order but with an application for seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order. Appeals No. 1076 of 2022, 1085 of 2022, 964 & 965 of 2022, 1122 of 2022, 1143 of 2022 and 1174 of 2022 (six appeals) have been filed within the extended period of 15 days alongwith an application for condonation of delay and an application for seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order. Whereas Appeals No. 1135 of 2022, 1136 of 2022 and 270 of 2023 (three appeals) have either been filed within a period of 30 days or within the extended period of 15 days but all without any application for seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order in terms of Rule 14 of the Rules.
# 41. The objection raised by the Respondent in all these appeals is that since the certified copy has not been applied within a period of 30 days, therefore, the limitation to file the appeal has expired which cannot be cured even by allowing an application for seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order. Counsel for the Respondent has heavily relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Appellate Tribunal in the cases of V. Nagarajan (Supra), Sanket Kumar Agarwal (Supra), Jindal Power Limited (Supra) and Gaurav Agarwal (Supra).
# 42. On the other hand, Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the decisions in the cases of V. Nagarajan (Supra) and other judgments relied upon by the Respondent are not applicable to the facts of this case and has emphatically relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Bajaj (Supra) to contend that every case has to be decided on its own facts.
# 43. In order to appreciate their respective arguments, we shall now refer to the facts of all the four cases relied upon by the Respondent and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Appellate Tribunal.
# 44. Facts of the case of V. Nagarajan (Supra) are that the Adjudicating Authority pronounced the order on 31.12.2019 in the open court in the presence of the Appellant. The Judgment was uploaded on the website on 12.03.2020. However, the name of judicial member was incorrectly mentioned in the uploaded order, therefore, the corrected order was uploaded on 20.03.2020. The Appellant claims to have awaited the issue of a free copy and sought free copy on 23.03.2020 in terms of Section 420(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 (in short ‘the Act, 2013’) r/w Rule 50 of the NCLT, Rules, 2016 (in short ‘NCLT Rules’). According to the Appellant, the free copy was not issued. The Appeal before this Tribunal was filed on 08.06.2020 with an application for exemption from filing the certified copy of the order as it had not been issued. The appeal was dismissed by this Tribunal on 13.07.2020 being barred by limitation. It noted that the statutory period had expired and application for condonation of delay had not been filed. It further noted that Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 (in short ‘NCLAT Rules’) provides that every appeal must be accompanied with a certified copy of the impugned order, which had not been annexed.
# 45. The argument raised by the Appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case was that Section 420(3) of the Act and Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules mandates a free copy of the order to be issued to every party. This obviates the need for any party to obtain a certified copy of the order it seeks to impugn by way of an appeal, therefore, the clock of limitation would run from the date of free copy is issued. It was also urged that Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules mandates a certified copy of the order for filing an appeal but Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules permits a waiver from compliance with any of the rules, which has been usually granted in case of a downloaded online copy, in lieu of a certified copy of the order.
# 46. On the other hand, submissions made by the Respondent noticed in the aforesaid judgment that Section 421(3) of the Act is not applicable to the proceedings under the Code and as per Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules, the appeal has to be accompanied with a certified copy of the impugned order which was not filed by the Appellant.
# 47. In view of the aforesaid facts, two questions were framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely,
(i)when will the clock for calculating the limitation period run for appeals filed under the Code and
(ii) is the annexing of a certified copy mandatory for an appeal to NCLAT against an order passed under the Code.
# 48. In so far as the first question is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that
“the notable difference between Section 421(3) of the Companies Act and Section 61(2) of the IBC is in the absence of the words “from the date on which a copy of the order of the Tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved” in the latter. The absence of these words cannot be construed as a mere omission which can be supplemented with a right to a free copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies Act read with Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules for the purposes of reckoning limitation”.
# 49. It further held that “In this background, when timelines are placed even on legal proceedings, reading in the requirement of an “order being made available” under a general enactment (Companies Act) would do violence to the special provisions enacted under the IBC where timing is critical for the workability of the mechanism, health of the economy, recovery rate of lenders and valuation of the corporate debtor. The IBC, as a prescriptive mechanism, affecting rights of stakeholders who are not necessarily parties to the proceedings, mandates diligence on the part of applicants who are aggrieved by the outcome of their litigation. An appeal, if considered necessary and expedient by an aggrieved party, is expected to be filed forthwith without awaiting a free copy which may be received at an indefinite stage. Hence, the omission of the words “from the date on which the order is made available” for the purposes of computation of limitation in Section 61(2) of the IBC, is a consistent signal of the intention of the legislature to nudge the parties to be proactive and facilitate timely resolution.”
# 50. In respect of second question, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while referring to Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules held that “therefore, it cannot be said that the parties can automatically dispense with their obligation to apply for and obtain a certified copy for filing an appeal. Any delay in receipt of a certified copy, once an application has been filed, have been envisaged by the legislature and duly excluded to not cause any prejudice to a litigant’s right to appeal”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short ‘the Act of 1963’) and has made the following observations:- . . . . .
# 51. Hence, in the case of V. Nagarajan (Supra), it has been held that the limitation would commence from the date of order and the time taken by the Court to provide the Appellant certified copy has to be excluded, as provided under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, provided a certified copy is applied within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Code. It has also held that as per Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, filing of an appeal with the certified copy is mandatory.
# 52. In so far as the second judgment, relied upon by the Counsel for the RP in the case of Sanket Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Supra) is concerned, the facts of this case are that the application filed under Section 7 of the Code by the Appellant was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 26.08.2022. The Appellant filed the application on 02.09.2022 for obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 26.08.2022. The application was received by the registry on 05.09.2022. It uploaded the order on the website on 15.09.2022 and provided the certified copy to the Appellant on the same date i.e. 15.09.2022. the Appellant filed the appeal on 10.10.2022 through e-filing with an application for seeking condonation of delay of five days. A physical copy of the appeal was filed on 31.10.2022. In the said case, the Appellant submitted that the appeal had been filed within the period of limitation when the order was made available in the public domain i.e. 15.09.2022 but still he considered 26.08.2022 as the date from which the limitation would commence. It was stated that the prescribed period of 30 days for filing the appeal ended on 05.10.2022 after accounting for the exclusion of 10 days from 05.09.2022 to 15.09.2022 on account of the time taken to provide the certified copy. It was submitted that delay of five days had occurred, however, this Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was lodged through e-filing on 10.10.2022 which was the 46th day after the order of the NCLT.
# 53. In this background, the Appellant challenged the order of this Tribunal on limitation. In this case, it was urged by the Appellant that this Tribunal had committed an error in not excluding the period of 10 days from 05.09.2022 to 15.09.2022 spent for obtaining the certified copy and further erred in not excluding the date on which the order was pronounced though it is provided in Section 12(2) of the Act, 1963 and Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules. The appeal was contested by the Respondent alleging that it was efiled on 10.10.2022 and made a reference to the circular issued by the NCLAT on 03.01.2021 notifying the standard operating procedure for e-filing in terms of which physical copies were required to be filed as per the procedure prescribed under the NCLAT Rules alongwith e-filing receipt.On 21.10.2022, a further order was issued by the NCLAT as per which the period of limitation would cease to run only after a physical copy was presented. On 24.12.2022 another order was issued by which the earlier order dated 21.10.2022 was withdrawn and limitation was ordered to be computed from the date of e-filing. It was argued that even e-filing of the appeal on 10.10.2022 would not result in limitation ceasing to operate and it was only when the hard copy was filed then the limitation would stop running. On this premise, after discussing all the circulars issued by this Tribunal from time to time, the Hon’ble Supreme court was pleased to hold that:- . . .
# 54. Thus, in nutshell, in the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
(i) the limitation stops running on the e-filing of the appeal and not from the date of presentation of the physical copy.
(ii) the date on which the order is pronounced is to be excluded from the calculation of limitation
(iii) the time taken by the NCLAT to provide the certified copy would be excluded in the calculating of limitation provided the Appellant apply for certified copy within the period prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Code.
# 55. The next judgment relied upon by Counsel for the RP is in the case of Jindal Power Limited (Supra).
# 56. The facts of this case are that the impugned order was pronounced on 02.08.2022 and the appeal was filed on 19.09.2022. From 02.08.2022, 30 days period came to an end on 01.09.2022 and further 15 days period also came to an end on 16.09.2022 and since the appeal was filed on 19.09.2022, therefore, it was on the 48th day.
# 57. In this case, the certified copy was applied on 15.09.2022 which was delivered on 19.09.2022, therefore, argument was raised that the period consumed during obtaining certified copy need to be excluded. This submission was made because the certified copy was applied on 15.09.2022i.e. one day before 45th day and the copy was delivered on 19.09.2022 and according to the Appellant it would have come within the condonable period and not beyond the period of 45 days, however, it has been held that “the benefit of requisite for filing certified copy can be claimed by an applicant only when certified copy is applied before the expiry of the period of limitation”. Thus, in this case, the Appellant was trying to take advantage of Section 12(2) of the Act, 1963.
# 58. In the case of Gaurav Agarwal (Supra),the facts of the case are that the impugned order was passed on 06.05.2022. The case of the Appellant was that the NCLT uploaded the order on 30.06.2022. He applied for certified copy on 15.06.2022 received the same on 04.07.2022 and sought exclusion of the period from 15.06.2022 to 04.07.2022 (date on which the certified copy was received) and alleged that there was a delay of only 9 days. However, the Court found that the impugned order was passed on 06.05.2022 and the period of 30 days expired on 06.06.2022. 15 days period upto which delay is condonable expired upto 20.06.2022 but the appeal was filed on 06.07.2022. It was found that free of copy was issued on 04.07.2022 but it was also noticed that Counsel for the Appellant was present when the order was pronounced on 06.05.2022, therefore, limitation started running from the date of knowledge and not from the date of uploading of the order. The certified copy is stated to have been applied on 15.06.2022 i.e after the expiry of 30 days. It was then held that
“we thus are of the view that present appeal has been filed beyond 45 days from date of the order dated 06.05.2022 and delay of more than 15 days beyond the period of 30 days cannot be condoned by this Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 61(2) of the Code”.
# 59. Thus, the ratio of all the four judgments is that
(i) the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of pronouncement of the order in the cases covered by the Code
(ii) It is mandatory to annex the certified copy of the impugned order with the memorandum of appeal
(iii) the Tribunal may exempt the parties from compliance with the procedural requirement in the interest of substantial justice as reiterated in Rule 14
(iv) There is no automatic exemption where the litigants makes no efforts to pursue a timely resolution of their grievance.
(v) The Appellant having failed to apply for a certified copy, rendered the appeal filed before the NCLAT as clearly barred by limitation.
(vi) It is not open to the person aggrieved under the Code to await the receipt of free certified copy under Section 420(3) of the Act r/w Rule 50 and prevent limitation from running
(vii) Litigant has to file the appeal within 30 days which can be extended upto a period of 15 days on showing sufficient cause which cannot be condoned thereafter (viii) Limitation cease to run from the date of -e-filing
(ix) In order to take advantage of Section 12(2) of the Act 1963, certified copy has to be applied during the currency of the period prescribed for filing an appeal.
60. In our humble opinion, in none of the aforesaid judgments, the issue raised in these appeals that if the certified copy is not applied within 30 days then the limitation would expire, has been questioned and as such there is no decision on it.
61. Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sambhaji and Ors. (Supra) in which it has been held that ‘processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. A Procedural prescription is the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice’. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. (Supra) has laid down the following parameters for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal which are reproduced as under:-
“1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”
62. It has also been well settled that where the substantive law provides for rights and liabilities of the parties, procedural law prescribes the practice, procedure and machinery for the enforcement of those rights and liabilities but a procedural law is always subservient to the substantive law and nothing can be given by a procedural law what is not sought to be given by a substantive law and nothing can be taken away by the procedural law what is given by the substantive law.
63. It has been found from the resume of the facts that four appeals have been filed within a period of 30 days, six appeals have been filed within the extended period of 15 days alongwith the application for condonation of delay which are yet to be decided and all these ten appeals have been filed with applications for seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order whereas three appeals have been filed without seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order which can be granted under Rule 14 of the Rules.
64. In all these appeals, the certified copies have been obtained after the expiry of 30 days/45 days but the fact remains that the application for seeking exemption is yet to be disposed of and this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant the exemption for the compliance of the Rules though on a sufficient cause shown in an appropriate application filed by the Appellant. Similarly, six appeals have been filed beyond the period of 30 days but within 45 days and the application for condonation of delay has not yet been decided. Supposing, the application for condonation of delay is allowed then the appeals shall be deemed to have been filed within the period of limitation and if the application is dismissed then the matter would be over. In so far as the remaining three appeals are concerned, these appeals have been filed without any application for seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order whereas Rule 14 clearly lays down that exemption can be granted if an application is moved in that behalf and by assigning a sufficient cause to render substantial justice.
65. We have gone through the applications filed for seeking exemption i.e. I.A. No. 2302 of 2023 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 691 of 2023, I.A. No. 3160 of 2022 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1076 of 2022, I.A. No. 3199 of 2022 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1085 of 2022, I.A. No. 2082-2083 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 757&758 of 2022, I.A No. 2751-2752 of 2022 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 964 & 965 of 2022, I.A. No. 2961 of 2022 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1015 of 2022, I.A. No. 3342 of 2022 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1122 of 2022, I.A. No. 3437 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1143 of 2022, I.A. No. 3537 of 2022 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1174 of 2022 and I.A. No. 3727 of 2023 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1079 of 2023 and for the reasons mentioned therein, which are found to be sufficient, these aforesaid exemption applications are hereby allowed and the Appellants in these aforesaid appeals are directed to file the certified copy of the impugned order within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order (if already not placed on record).
66. In so far as the applications filed by the Appellant for seeking condonation of delay in terms of Section 61(2) proviso are concerned, those applications shall be taken up individually with the main appeal.
67. Three appeals i.e. Appeals No. 1135 of 2022, 1136 of 2022 and 270 of 2023 in which no application for seeking exemption has been filed are held to be not maintainable because the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the case of V. Nagarajan (Supra) that the Appellant cannot on his own dispense with the filing of the certified copy and in the absence of any application for exemption, these three appeals are hereby dismissed.
68. With the aforesaid discussion, the objection raised by Counsel for the Respondent (RP) about the maintainability of these appeals is hereby decided.
---------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment