1. Special Leave Petitions filed with delays in filing and re-filing against an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 109
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D. Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Gopal Krishnan MS & Anr. – Petitioners
VERSUS
Ravindra Beleyur & Anr. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.2341 of 2023
Decided On : 02-01-2024
Important Points
The bar of limitation cannot be obviated or circumvented by taking recourse of proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal is available.
Subject
Civil Law - Limitation and Appeals
Act Referred
Headnote
Limitation - Special Leave Petitions - Dismissal on Ground of Delay and Merits
Fact of the Case:
The Special Leave Petitions were filed with a delay of 20 days and re-filed with a delay of 191 days. The impugned order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dated 28 September 2022 was under consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The Court declined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution due to the bar of limitation, emphasizing that statutory appeal should be pursued instead. The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
Issues: Delay in filing and re-filing of Special Leave Petitions, Applicability of Article 136 of the Constitution, Bar of Limitation
Ratio Decidendi: The bar of limitation cannot be obviated or circumvented by taking recourse of proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal is available.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Adv. Mr. Shiju Abraham Verghis, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Ms. Shivani Vij, Adv. Ms. Anshika Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Tissy Annie Thomas, Adv. M/s. Kmnp Law
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Raj JS, Adv. M/s. Ksn & Co.
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Adv. Mr. Shiju Abraham Verghis, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Ms. Shivani Vij, Adv. Ms. Anshika Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Tissy Annie Thomas, Adv. M/s. Kmnp Law
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Raj JS, Adv. M/s. Ksn & Co.
Table of Contents
2. The impugned order is amenable to appellate jurisdiction under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. (Para 2 )
3. The bar of limitation cannot be circumvented via Article 136 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal is available. (Para 2 )
4. Special Leave Petitions dismissed on the grounds of delay and merits, and pending applications disposed of. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Can a petitioner use Article 136 of the Constitution to bypass limitation periods if a statutory appeal is available?
No, the bar of limitation cannot be obviated or circumvented by taking recourse to proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal is available. (Para 2 )
6. Which provision governs the appellate jurisdiction over orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in insolvency matters?
Orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal are amenable to appellate jurisdiction under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. (Para 2 )
Order
1. There is a delay of 20 days in filing and 191 days in re-filing the Special Leave Petitions.
2. Since the impugned order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dated 28 September 2022 is amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, we decline to entertain a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. The bar of limitation cannot be obviated or circumvented by taking recourse of proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution when a statutory appeal is available. We accordingly decline to entertain the Special Leave Petitions only on that ground leaving it open to the petitioner to adopt appropriate remedies in accordance with law.
3. The Special Leave Petitions are, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
4. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
