The appellant failed to apply for a certified copy of the order, demonstrating a lack of due diligence; delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned.
The appellant's delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned as the limitation period commenced from the date of pronouncement of the order, and the appellant failed to apply for a certified copy of the order, demonstrating a lack of due diligence.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dealt with an application, I.A. No. 478 of 2024, seeking condonation of an 18-day delay in filing an appeal against an order passed on November 10, 2023. The appellant e-filed the appeal on December 29, 2023. The delay condonation application argued that the impugned order was not available until December 12, 2023, when it was uploaded to the NCLT website. The appellant claimed that internal discussions and obtaining legal opinions caused further delay and that the NCLAT was closed for holidays from December 24, 2023, to January 1, 2024.
The respondent, Bank of Baroda, opposed the application, asserting that the order was pronounced in open court in the presence of the appellant's counsel and uploaded on the NCLT website on December 5, 2023. They argued that the appellant did not apply for a certified copy of the order and thus cannot claim ignorance of the order. The respondent maintained that the delay in filing the appeal was unconscionable.
Upon review, the NCLAT found that the order was indeed pronounced in open court on November 10, 2023, and noted the appellant's presence in the impugned order itself. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant was responsible for obtaining a certified copy of the order and that no application for such a copy had been made. The NCLAT held that the delay could not be condoned, as the appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the appeal. The appeal's limitation period began on the date of pronouncement, not the date of uploading, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Others, REEDLAW 2021 SC 10518, which underscores the necessity of filing for a certified copy to benefit from any extension under Section 12 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay.
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