Limitation Period For Filing Appeal Begins From Date Of Pronouncement If Substantive Order Is Passed: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that it is only when no substantive order is passed on the date of pronouncement that the date of uploading the order shall be considered for calculating the limitation period, and not the date...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that it is only when no substantive order is passed on the date of pronouncement that the date of uploading the order shall be considered for calculating the limitation period, and not the date of pronouncement. However, this principle cannot be invoked when a substantive order was, in fact, passed on the date of pronouncement in such cases, the limitation period shall begin from that very date.
Brief Facts:
These applications have been filed seeking condonation of delay. The impugned order was passed on 30.09.2024, and the appeal was e-filed on 24.12.2024 that is after a delay of 55 days.
The Appellant submitted that the order was not fully dictated on 30.09.2024 and Court only said that Court is inclined to allow the application.
Observations:
The Tribunal noted that Resolution Professional (RP) has clearly stated in the minutes that the NCLT, while allowing the application, directed the RP to pay the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cost to Mr. Ashok Krishanlal Sharma and Mr. Krishan Lal Sharma.
Based on the above, it held that there is no merit in the Appellant's claim that the order was not fully dictated. The reply affidavit establishes that it was dictated in open Court. Hence, the limitation period began the next day, and there was a 55-day delay in filing the appeal.
The Tribunal further observed that the Appellant reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Sanjay Pandurang Kalate' Vs. 'Vistara ITC (India) Ltd. & Ors.' is misplaced where it was held that when no substantive order is passed on the date of pronoucement, the date of uploading order shall be treated to be date of order and the limitation period shall start from the date of uploading.
However, the Tribunal noted that in the present case the facts are entirely different, order was dictated in the open court which has been captured by the RP in its minutes of the next date, dated 01.10.2024 and the submission in the delay condonation application that no order was dictated in the open court is contrary to own minutes of the RP recorded on 01.10.2024.
Accordingly, the present applications were dismissed.
Case Title: Rajan Rawat, RP Future Supply Chain Solutions Ltd. Versus Kishanlal Shivramji Sharma
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 167 of 2025 & I.A. No. 657 of 2025
Judgment Date: 09/04/2025
For Appellant : Mr. Dhananjaya Sud, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Prasad Abhyankar and Ms. Aditi Deshpande, Advocates.
![IBC Weekly Round-Up [7th April-13th April 2025]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/08/01/500x300_552807-weekly-digest-of-ibc-cases.webp "IBC Weekly Round-Up [7th April-13th April 2025]")