Supreme Court: Benefit Of S. 12(2) Limitation Act Available Only On Application For Grant Of Order’s Certified Copy Being Filed Till Its Date Of Preparation
|The Supreme Court emphasised that an exemption from filing of certified copy cannot be claimed as a matter of right in terms of the statutory requirements of the Rules.
The Supreme Court held that the benefit of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is available only on an Application for grant of certified copy of the Order having been filed till the date of preparation of the said certified copy.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals preferred against the Order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which dismissed the Appeals as a consequence of dismissal of the Applications of condonation of delay on the even date.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “As regards the first appeal, which was accompanied with the certified copy supplied free by NCLT the same also being beyond the period of limitation and the time of ten days as sought to be exempted for the preparation and making available the certified copy cannot be credited to the benefit of the appellant as the period of limitation commences from the date of pronouncement of the order and the benefit of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act is available only on an application for grant of certified copy of the Order having been filed till the date of preparation of the said certified copy.”
The Bench emphasised that an exemption from filing of certified copy cannot be claimed as a matter of right in terms of the statutory requirements of the Rules.
Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar represented the Appellant while Senior Advocates Tapesh Kumar Singh and Amit Sibal represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
Two Appeals were filed before the NCLAT against two separate Orders of the NCLT where an Application of the Appellant who was the shareholder and suspended Managing Director of a company (Corporate Debtor) under Section 60(5) read with Section 35(1)(N) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), seeking a direction to the Respondents to place the Resolution Plan (RP) submitted by him before the Committee of Creditors (Coc) for consideration along with the other RP and for staying the voting results on RP which was dismissed and another Application of the Resolution Professional under Sections 30(6) and 31(1) of the IBC read with Regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, had been allowed.
The Appeals were filed without any Application for condonation of delay by the Appellant with a declaration that the same was within the period specified in Section 61 IBC. Upon notice having been issued to the Respondents in the Appeals, objection was raised by the Respondents to the effect that the Appeals were beyond the period of limitation. The NCLAT dismissed the Applications for condonation of delay which led to the dismissal of the Appeals. Hence, the case was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “It can, thus, be concluded that the litigant has to file its appeal under Section 61(2) within 30 days which can be extended up to a period of 15 days, and no more, upon showing sufficient cause. A slate of interpretation of procedural rules cannot be used to defeat the substantive objective of legislation which is prescribed in a time frame. As a result, thereof, the period of limitation for filing the appeal having been laid down and proviso thereto limiting the exercise up to a distance for condoning the delay mandatorily has to be adhered to.”
The Court said that the mandate of Rule 22(2) of NCLAT Rules has to be complied with which requires certified copy to be annexed along with Appeal which binds a litigant under the IBC and that the Appellant having failed to apply for the same renders Appeal filed before the NCLAT as clearly barred by limitation.
“… the period to compute limitation to file an appeal under Section 61 IBC from the Order of NCLT commences from the date of uploading of the Order by the Registry as the commencement of the period of Limitation is intrinsically linked to the date of pronouncement”, it reiterated.
The Court observed that the incident which triggers limitation to commence is the date of pronouncement of the Order and in case of non-pronouncement of the Order when the hearing concludes, the date on which the Order is pronounced or uploaded on the website.
“However, where the judgment was pronounced in open Court, the period of limitation starts running from that very day. The appellant is however entitled to seek relief under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act for excluding the period during which the certified copy was under preparation on an application preferred by that party”, it added.
The Court was of the view that the Appeals as preferred by the Appellant need to be dismissed as they were filed beyond 30 days and no steps have been taken by the Appellant to seek certified copy of the Order.
“That apart, the second appeal, on this score alone is to be dismissed as there is no question of moving an application for condonation of delay when no application for obtaining a certified copy of the order has been filed. … Since no such steps have been taken by the appellant for applying the certified copy, the appeal was beyond limitation”, it further said.
The Court noted that the Application of condonation of delay in the first Appeal, disclosing no reasons whatsoever in filing the Appeal, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Application for condonation of delay.
“The satisfaction has to be of the Appellate Tribunal and that too on justifiable grounds, which, as is apparent, from the perusal of the application there is none pleaded which can be said to be projecting sufficient cause for not approaching the Appellate Tribunal within the time stipulated under Section 61(2) of the IBC”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals and upheld the NCLAT’s Order.
Cause Title- A Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 447)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar and AOR Raghav Sabharwal.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Tapesh Kumar Singh, Amit Sibal, AORs Tulika Mukherjee, Pallavi Pratap, Divya Anand, Siddharth Sangal, Advocates Kumar Anurag Singh, Zain A. Khan, Vaibhav More, Dev Aaryan, Petrushka Dasgupta, Richa Mishra, Harshita Agrawal, and Mushkan Mangla.