Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 13
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) , Hon'ble Mr. Arun Baroka (Member (Technical)) ,
INDUSTRIAL FORGING INDUSTRIES PRIVATELIMITED – Appellant
Versus
A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED – Respondent
1470/ND/2024 COMPANY APPEAL(AT)(INS)
Ms. S. Shah and Mr. Aniket Chaudhury for Appellant; Mr. Tushar Mudgil, Mr. Nikhil Kohli, Mr. Kushank Garg for Respondent
Limitation for filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code commences from the date of the order pronounced, not from the date of any clerical correction.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 61(2) - Delay in filing appeal - Application for condonation of delay rejected as appeal filed beyond condonable period - Limitation for filing appeal commences from date of order pronounced, not from date of correction of typographical error - Correction of date does not modify the judgment. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
(B) Limitation - The period of limitation for filing an appeal is strictly governed by the date of pronouncement of the order, and any clerical correction does not reset the limitation period. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought to condone the delay in filing an appeal against an order dated 08.12.2023, claiming a clerical error in the date of the order as a reason for the delay. The appeal was filed on 12.06.2024, beyond the prescribed limitation period.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the limitation for filing the appeal commenced from the date of the order, 08.12.2023, and the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period.
Issues: The main issue was whether the limitation for filing the appeal should commence from the date of the original order or the date of the correction of the clerical error.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the limitation for filing the appeal commences from the date of the order pronounced, and a clerical correction does not alter this timeline.
Result: Delay Condonation Applications are dismissed; Memo of Appeals is rejected.
ORDER
(13th January, 2025)
Ashok Bhushan, J.
This is an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The order impugned was delivered on 08.12.2023 by NCLT, Chandigarh Bench (Court-II), Chandigarh. This appeal has been filed on 12.06.2024. Notices were issued on the Delay Condonation Application. Reply has been filed by the Respondent to which Rejoinder has also been filed. In the application the ground taken by the Appellant is that after passing of the order dated 08.12.2023, the Appellant filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority for correction of order dated 08.12.2023 which was heard and decided on 29.04.2024 correcting the date of order from 08.12.2022 to 08.12.2023. In paras 3 and 4 of the application following reasons have been given:
Cont’d…./
“3. After the passing of the order dated 8th December, 2023 and while drafting the appeal from the said order it transpired that the date of the order has gone in as 8th December, 2022 instead of 8th December, 2023 as such the Petitioner filed an application before the Learned Chandigarh Bench seeking correction of the said order dated 8th December, 2023 which was heard on 29th May, 2024 and an order was passed incorporating the correction in the order dated 8th December, 2023. The petitioner craves leave to rely upon the said orders at the time of hearing, if necessary.
4. After the passing of the order incorporating the clerical/typographical error the Petitioner, based in Kolkata, got the appeal prepared by its Advocates in Kolkata and settled by a Senior Advocate and ready to be filed. The office of the Learned Advocate was only awaiting the certified copies of the orders which were applied for by a clerk at Chandigarh so engaged by the petitioners. On 24th May, 2024 when, upon constant following up and calling the said clerk, the Learned Advocate got to know from the family member of the Learned clerk who received the call that the said clerk had passed away in the meantime and they were unable to assist with whereabouts of any certified copies, the Learned Advocates not having much time in hand and not left with any other option instructed his office to send the affirmed appeal and the application along with dasti copies to the filing Clerk at Delhi. The courts at Delhi were off for the summer vacations on and from 31st May, 2024 and the filing clerk at Delhi had some important medical issue to be addressed. The petitioner’s advocate then got another reference of a clerk who was available to file the said appeal and the same was finally filed on 12th June, 2024. Thus, it was only due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner that the instant appeal was filed 14 days beyond the 30 days period.”
2. In the Reply filed by the Respondent, it is submitted that the appeal is filed beyond the condonable period. It is submitted that order was delivered on 08.12.2023 and although in the end of the order date mentioned is 08.12.2023 but on the first page of the order the date was mentioned as 08.12.2022. It is submitted that admittedly the order was delivered on 08.12.2023, hence, the limitation for filing the appeal shall commence from the said date. It is submitted that the certified copy of the order was obtained on 13.12.2023 and application was filed on 13.01.2024 for correction of date and order of correction was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 29.04.2024 and certified copy of the order was obtained on 24.05.2024 and the present appeal could be filed on 12.06.2024. It is submitted that the order dated 29.04.2024 does not make any correction or modification in the order and only correction is made in the date of the order as 08.12.2023 in place of 08.12.2022, which was wrongly recorded in first page of the order. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Respondent that the order having delivered on 08.12.2023, which date was mentioned in the end of the order, there was no impediment to the Appellant for filing the appeal within t
