The limitation for filing an appeal begins upon the pronouncement of the order and not its publication, making delays uncondonable if not filed timely.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. I.A. No. 478 of 2024 is an Application praying for condonation of 18 days delay in filing the Appeal.

2. The Order impugned was passed on 10th November, 2023 and this Appeal has been e-filed on 29.12.2023.

3. In the Delay Condonation Application, the Appellant has submitted that Impugned Order was not available prior to 12.12.2023 and Impugned Order was made available on website of NCLT on 12.12.2023. In paragraph 3 and 4, following reasons have been given for condonation of delay:

“3. That the impugned order is dated 10.11.2023. The period of 30 days, thus starts from 11.11.2023 which expires on 11.12.2023. It is a matter of fact that the impugned order was not available prior to 12.12.2023. The impugned order was made available on the official website of NCLT on 12.12.2023 thereafter the Bank internally discussed the matter& took both internal and external legal opinion on the issue of filing an appeal which took some time and caused delay which was neither intentional nor mala fide. Hence, the appellant is seeking condonation of additional 15 days period as provided under the statute which expires on 26.12.2023.

4. It is humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal was closed for Christmas holidays from 24.12.2023 to 01.02.2024. Thus, the period of limitation was available till 02.02.2024. The Appeal was e-filed on 29.12.2023, during the period when this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal was on holidays.”

4. An Additional Affidavit in support of delay condonation application has been filed by the Appellant where it was pleaded that on 10.11.2023, I.A. No. 127 of 22 was listed under the category of ‘ordinary list’. At the time of hearing, NCLT indicated that I.A. would be disposed of however order was not pronounced in the open court and when the Order was uploaded on the website of NCLT between 09.12.2023 to 12.12.2023 it was further pleaded that Advocate representing the Bank made an attempt on 20th November, 2023 to file a Precipe for obtaining certified copy of the Order with the Registry of NCLT however counsel for the Applicant was informed by the Registry that SBI was not a party to the I.A. hence they cannot apply for certified copy of the Order. In the Additional Affidavit in support of Delay Condonation Application, following has been stated in Para 3 to 4:

“3. The Advocates representing the Applicant bank before the Hon’ble NCLT have advised the bank regarding sequence of events which happened during the course of hearing on 10.11.2023. The Applicant Bank has been apprised that on 10.11.2023 the IA no. 127 of 22 was listed under the category of ’ordinary list’. At the time of hearing, the Hon’ble NCLT indicated that the said IA would be disposed of, however, the impugned order was not pronounced in open court. It is a matter of fact that the impugned order was uploaded on the website of the Hon’ble NCLT between 09.12.2023 and 12.12.2023. The Advocates representing the Applicant Bank before the NCLT made an attempt on 20.11.2023 to file a precipe for obtaining certified copy of the Impugned Order dated 10.11.2023, with the Registry of the NCLT. However, the Advocates representing Applicant Bank were informed by the Registry of NCL T, that since SBI was not a formal party to the said IA, their Advocates cannot apply for a certified copy of the impugned order and the same cannot be provided.

4. It has humbly submitted that the said IA was not listed for pronouncement of orders on 10.11.2023 and was only listed under the caption ’ordinary list’. Further, the impugned order was not pronounced in open court. In the premises it was not possible for the Applican