NCLAT dismissed the appeal for procedural lapses, emphasizing strict adherence to limitation periods under the IBC.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Mr. Jatindranath Swain reviewed an Appeal and held that the strict adherence to the statutory timelines under Section 61 of the IBC is mandatory, and failure to apply for a certified copy of the order within the prescribed limitation period precludes reliance on the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation extension or subsequent condonation of delay. The NCLAT Bench noted that procedural diligence is a prerequisite for invoking appellate remedies, regardless of claims of aggrieved status or external limitations.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) addressed a critical issue of limitation under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), in an appeal challenging the approval of a revised resolution plan. The appellant contested the order dated 31.01.2020, submitting that the appeal filed on 28.05.2021 fell within the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ (C) No. 3/2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondents opposed the appeal, arguing that the statutory limitation period expired before the applicability of the Supreme Court’s order and that the appellant’s procedural lapses barred relief.
The tribunal examined key contentions, including the appellant’s failure to apply for a certified copy of the order within the statutory 30-day period, the applicability of the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation suspension, and whether the appellant’s participation in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) attributed knowledge of the proceedings. It emphasized that the statutory timeline under Section 61(2) of the IBC, permitting a 30-day appeal period with a maximum condonable delay of 15 days, must be strictly followed.
Relying on the principles laid down in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Others, REEDLAW 2021 SC 10518, the tribunal reiterated the requirement to apply for a certified copy within the initial limitation period. The appellant’s delayed application for the certified copy, filed over a year later on 30.04.2021, was found inconsistent with procedural diligence. Furthermore, the tribunal noted that the appellant’s limitation period had already expired before the Supreme Court’s suo motu order suspending limitation came into effect on 15.03.2020, rendering the COVID-19 extension inapplicable.
The NCLAT also examined the appellant’s claim of being a "person aggrieved" under Section 61, concluding that while the term is broad, encompassing individuals materially affected by an order, it does not excuse procedural non-compliance. The tribunal rejected arguments of ignorance, citing evidence of email correspondence demonstrating the appellant’s knowledge of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that procedural timelines safeguard judicial discipline and fairness. The judgment underscores the significance of strict adherence to statutory limitation periods and the necessity of due diligence in initiating legal remedies. This decision reinforces the principle that statutory compliance is imperative, and mere participation in proceedings or retrospective reliance on limitation extensions cannot substitute for procedural vigilance.
Mr. T.K. Bhaskar, Advocate for Mr. Adithya Reddy, Advocate represented the Appellant.
Ms. Devangi, PCS for Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2.
Subscribers can access the Case, including Case Analysis, Ratio Decidendi, Headnotes, Briefs, Case Research, Cited Case Laws, Case Law Cross-references, and the latest updates on Statutes, Notifications, Circulars, Guidelines, Press Releases and more.
Click on the Citation/Link to access these resources
Comments