Summary
The Court dismissed the liquidator’s appeal because the NCLAT appeal was time-barred. Under Section 61 of the IBC, limitation ran from pronouncement of the NCLT order, rather than its later uploading or receipt of a free copy. A diligent application for a certified copy could secure exclusion of the requisite copying time under Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The appellant made no such application within limitation, and the COVID-19 extension did not revive an already expired appeal period. The merits of the bank-guarantee dispute were not decided.
Issues
- When limitation began for an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC and whether awaiting a free copy postponed it.
- Whether a certified copy was required and its discretionary waiver excused failure to seek one for limitation purposes.
Provisions considered
- Sections 61(1) and (2), 238 and 238A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016The special appellate regime required filing within thirty days, with at most fifteen additional days on sufficient cause; inconsistent Companies Act computation could not displace it. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23)
- Sections 12 and 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963Requisite copying time was excludable upon a timely application for a certified copy; time before applying was not automatically excluded. (¶¶ 9, 19, 20, 21)
- Rules 14 and 22(2), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016A certified copy ordinarily accompanied the appeal. Exemption was discretionary and did not automatically excuse the litigant’s lack of diligence. (¶¶ 18, 19, 22)
- Sections 420(3) and 421(3), Companies Act, 2013The right to a free copy and the Companies Act’s distinct appellate starting point did not postpone limitation under the IBC. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21)
- Rule 50, National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016The registry’s obligation to send a free certified copy did not permit an IBC appellant to wait indefinitely without applying for one. (¶¶ 13, 14, 21)
Held
- Section 61 deliberately omitted the Companies Act’s language computing limitation from availability of a copy. An aggrieved IBC litigant had to act diligently upon pronouncement, without awaiting uploading or a free certified copy. Sagufa Ahmed concerned the different Companies Act regime. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21)
- Section 12 excluded the requisite time for obtaining a copy after a timely application. It did not exclude the court’s preparation time before an application, and no copying-time exclusion arose where no application had been made. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Annexing a certified copy under Rule 22(2) remained the rule. A tribunal could grant a procedural waiver in the interests of substantial justice, but waiver was not an automatic exception or a means of defeating the statutory appellate deadline. (¶¶ 18, 19, 22)
- The appellant attended pronouncement on 31 December 2019 but did not diligently seek a certified copy. The thirty-day period expired on 30 January 2020 and the maximum condonable period on 14 February 2020. The subsequent pandemic extension did not revive that expired remedy. The Court confined its decision to limitation. (¶¶ 8, 20, 23)
Result
Appeal under Section 62 dismissed, sustaining the NCLAT’s dismissal on limitation; pending applications disposed of, with no order as to costs.