NCLT-150

Limitation for filing appeal under Section 61 of IBC shall start not from the date when it was uploaded by the NCLT on its website but from the date when the order was pronounced – Tarandeep Kaur Ahluwalia and Ors. Vs. One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) The limitation shall start not from the date when it was uploaded but from the date when the order was pronounced.
(ii) The period of limitation is to be counted from the date of pronouncement of the order in court on 03.07.2024 and in that process if the limitation is counted then it goes beyond the period of 15 days which cannot be condoned in any manner.

Limitation for filing appeal under Section 61 of IBC shall start not from the date when it was uploaded by the NCLT on its website but from the date when the order was pronounced – Tarandeep Kaur Ahluwalia and Ors. Vs. One City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The receipt of free of cost copy of NCLT Order cannot be a substitute for a Certified Copy to accompany the Appeal as per Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 – Munagala Roja Harsha Vardhini Vs. Vardhansmart Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) A mere running of the eye over the rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 clearly points out that the application of the Petitioner/Appellant to comply with a certified copy by paying the schedule of fees cannot be dispensed with and at best, the sending of the certified copy of final order by the authorities concerned, Free of Cost, is an obligation caused upon the Office of the Registry of the NCLT, as per NCLT Rules. Moreover, that the receipt of free of cost copy, the Petitioner/Appellant by receiving the same, and after recovering from illness, cannot be a substitute for a Certified Copy of the Impugned Order to accompany the Appeal as per Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016.
(ii) To put it precisely and succinctly, the Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 is to be read in conjunction with definition of Rule 2(9) of the NCLT Rules, 2016. To put it differently, Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 cannot be interpreted, disjunctively, without falling back upon the words employed under Rule 2(9) of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which provides for meaning for the word ‘certified’, in relation to a ‘Copy of the Document’ as mentioned therein.
(iii) Moreover, obtaining of Free of Cost Copy is only the concern of the particular party to the effect that an order was obtained against him and as a litigant/stakeholder he/she is to pursue the further course of action, in the manner known to law and in accordance with law.

The receipt of free of cost copy of NCLT Order cannot be a substitute for a Certified Copy to accompany the Appeal as per Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 – Munagala Roja Harsha Vardhini Vs. Vardhansmart Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

The pronouncement of the order is necessary and cannot be dispensed with | In cases where the matter has been heard on a particular day but the order is pronounced on a later date, the NCLT must refrain from affixing the date of hearing on the order – Sanjay Pandurang Kalate Vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
(i) The date on which the limitation begins to run is intrinsically linked to the date of pronouncement.
(ii) The pronouncement of the order is necessary and cannot be dispensed with.
(iii) In cases where the matter has been heard on a particular day but the order is pronounced on a later date, the NCLT must refrain from affixing the date of hearing on the order. Such an approach would be a violation of the NCLT Rules, which create a distinction between hearing and pronouncement and do not allow the NCLT to dispense with the requirement of pronouncement.
(iv) The Hon’ble Court appreciates the swift action taken by the NCLAT in view of the above observations. On 15 May 2023, soon after the decision in Sanket Agarwal (supra), an order was issued by the Registrar, NCLAT. Such proactive action by tribunals is essential to ensure that the move towards a modernized and technology-friendly judiciary trickles down to every judicial forum across the country. We record our appreciation of the proactive steps taken by the Chairperson, Members and the Registry of the NCLAT

The pronouncement of the order is necessary and cannot be dispensed with | In cases where the matter has been heard on a particular day but the order is pronounced on a later date, the NCLT must refrain from affixing the date of hearing on the order – Sanjay Pandurang Kalate Vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

There is no power to enjoin upon NCLAT to condone even a single day beyond the condonable period prescribed as per Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs. Nethi Mallikarjuna Setty – NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT held that in view of the clear-cut position of Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code coupled with 150 of the NLCT Rules, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the delay of 289 days as afforded by the Petitioner/Appellant from 10.03.2022 to 23.12.2022 in filing the instant Company Appeal cannot be condoned as there is no power to enjoin upon this Appellate Tribunal to condone not even a single day beyond the condonable period prescribed as per Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

There is no power to enjoin upon NCLAT to condone even a single day beyond the condonable period prescribed as per Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs. Nethi Mallikarjuna Setty – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Whether a member of the Bench who has not heard the arguments can pronounce the order of a Reserved Judgment? – Bhawanishankar Harishchandra Sharma Vs. Feedback Highways Omt Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that it is clear to us that law does not permit that the case is heard by one entity and the order is pronounced by another who has not heard the case at all. In such circumstances, the question posed hereinabove is hereby answered in favour of the Appellant and it is held that the order dated 10.01.2018, having been passed by a bench in which one of the member was not a member of the bench who had heard the matter at the time when it was reserved, is patently illegal and void ab-initio.

Whether a member of the Bench who has not heard the arguments can pronounce the order of a Reserved Judgment? – Bhawanishankar Harishchandra Sharma Vs. Feedback Highways Omt Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If an order/judgment of a Tribunal is not pronounced at all, the same is a nullity in the eye of law – M/s. Ergomaxx (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal – NCLAT Chennai

The grievance of the Appellant is that till date the matter was never listed for pronouncement of an order and that the Appellant while looking at the Tribunal’s website could not find the Impugned Order as the party names linked on the NCLT’s website was with a typo ‘Kruegar” instead of ‘Krueger’ and after trying various permutation/combination to the surprise of the Appellant on 06.02.2021, it found an order dated 07.12.2020 which was uploaded on the Tribunal’s website of which the Appellant had no knowledge.
NCLAT held that when the said final Impugned Order dated 07.12.2020 was not to be found nowhere in the NCLT Website, as averred by the Appellant, (being a predated one) and only later it came to know on 06.02.2021, then in law, it is held as that the Impugned Order dated 07.12.2020 was never pronounced by the Adjudicating Authority (there being a significant omission in regard to the pronouncement of an order by a Tribunal and the pronouncement being an essential judicial act) and hence it is declared nullity in the eye of law, apart from the crystalline fact is that the same was not listed for pronouncement.

If an order/judgment of a Tribunal is not pronounced at all, the same is a nullity in the eye of law – M/s. Ergomaxx (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top