Summary
The Supreme Court held that under Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 a certified copy sent free of cost by the Registry and a certified copy obtained on payment of fees stand on the same footing, distinguished V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat, and condoned a three-day delay in filing an IBC appeal before the NCLAT that fell within the condonable 15-day window.
Issues
- Whether a free certified copy sent by the NCLT Registry under Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules is a certified copy for the purpose of Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules.
- Whether a three-day delay beyond the 30-day period in Section 61(2) of the IBC could be condoned where the appellant relied on the free certified copy and had not applied for a paid certified copy.
Provisions considered
- Section 61(2), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016Appeal to the NCLAT lies within 30 days, extendable by up to 15 days on sufficient cause. The appeal was filed three days after the 30-day period, within the condonable window, and sufficient cause was shown. (¶¶ 4, 9, 20, 22)
- Rule 50, National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016The Registry must send a certified copy of the final order free of cost to the parties concerned, and certified copies are otherwise available on payment of fees. Read as treating both the free and the paid copy as certified copies on the same footing. (¶¶ 10, 13, 19, 22)
- Rule 22(2), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016Requires every appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order; the free certified copy under Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules satisfies this requirement. (¶¶ 11, 12, 19)
- Schedule of Fees, Entry 31, National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016The fee of Rupees five per page for certified copies of final orders applies to parties other than the concerned parties under Rule 50, supporting the reading that the concerned parties receive a certified copy free. (¶ 21)
Held
- Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules places the certified copy sent free of cost and the certified copy made available on payment of fees on the same footing; both are certified copies, and an appeal accompanied by the free certified copy complies with Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules. (¶¶ 13, 19, 21, 22)
- V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. holds that a litigant who does not apply for a certified copy cannot later claim to have been awaiting a free copy to avoid the bar of limitation; it does not apply where the free copy was in fact received and the appeal was filed within the condonable period. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
- On the facts, the free copy was made available on 14 November 2023 after the NCLT order of 30 October 2023, the appeal was lodged on 2 December 2023 with a delay of three days beyond 30 days, within the 15-day condonable period, and sufficient cause was shown; the NCLAT should have condoned the delay. (¶¶ 20, 22)
Result
Appeal allowed; the NCLAT judgment dismissing the condonation application set aside; the three-day delay condoned and the appeal restored to the file of the NCLAT.