A. Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: Limitation Act 12(2)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Limitation from pronouncement date and exclusion for certified-copy preparation: The reported Supreme Court ruling states that limitation begins from pronouncement in open court, subject to statutory exclusion for the period spent obtaining a certified copy where applicable.

Material facts and background

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.11070 - 11071 OF 2024 (@ DIARY NO. 10029 OF 2024) A RAJENDRA

Two appeals were preferred before the NCLAT against two separate orders passed on 20.07.2023 by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “NCLT”) where an application filed by the appellant herein who is the shareholder and suspended Managing Director of Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Limited (Corporate Debtor) under Section 60(5) read with Section 35(1)(N) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”) seeking a direction to the respondent(s)

submitted by him before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for consideration along with the other Resolution Plan and for staying the voting results on the Resolution Plan which was dismissed and another application preferred by Respondent No. 1, Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor (hereinafter referred to as “RP”) under Section 30(6) and 31(1) of the IBC read with regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) (Insolvency

It needs to be noted here at this stage that the appeals were preferred without any application for condonation of delay by the appellant herein with a declaration in Paragraph 6 of the grounds of appeal that the same is within the period specified in Section 61 of the IBC. Upon notice having been issued to the respondents in the appeals, objection was raised by the respondents to the effect that the appeals were beyond the period of limitation, applications for condonation of delay were preferred in both the appeals.

Since the first appeal had been filed along with free certified copy, which, on being ready and became available on 01.08.2023 was made the basis to assert in the application that the appeal was within limitation whereas in the application in the other appeal, it was asserted that the period of limitation would begin from the date of knowledge of the contents of the Order which was made available to the appellant by the ‘RP’ on 07.08.2023, therefore the appeal was within limitation. Although it was

mentioned that the copies have been applied for by instructing the counsel, but no proofs thereof have been submitted rather at a subsequent stage it is admitted as a matter of fact that the appellant has not applied for the certified copy of any of the Orders. 5.

The NCLAT, Chennai proceeded to decide the question with regard to the period of limitation and the justification which is sought to have been given by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeals as also the mis-statement made in the ground of appeal and dismissed the same. The reasons for the same

Appellant / assessee submissions

Learned senior counsel for the appellant, although on facts, could not dispute the findings as returned by the NCLAT but had however sought to assert that, the appeals as have been filed being within the permissible period where the delay could be condoned by the NCLAT as provided for under Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act. The Appellate Tribunal could not dismiss the application or the appeal. Reliance has also been placed on Section 61 of the IBC especially proviso to sub-section (2) thereto. The said proviso allows an additional period of 15 days to file an appeal beyond the initial period of 30 days. It is on this basis asserted that since 45 days had not passed on the date of filing the appeal from the date of pronouncement of the Order i.e. 20th of July, 2023 by the NCLAT, the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned.

been made for setting aside the impugned order, allow the present appeal, to condone the delay in filing the appeals and remand them to the NCLAT for fresh decision on merits. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the prayer as has been made by the counsel for the appellant and has supported the Order passed by the NCLAT on the same grounds as has been put forth in the impugned order. Since the facts are borne out from the pleadings itself, it is asserted by the senior counsel for the respondents that no certified copy had been applied for by the appellant. The appeal was filed on 28.08.2023 whereas the impugned Order was pronounced by NCLT on 20th July 2023. The period expired on 19.08.2023 i.e. 30 days as provided under Section 61(2) of IBC that the counsel has stressed upon the fact that the appellant had not come to the Court with clean hands and is guilty of supressing facts. Reference has been made to para 6 and 17 of the grounds of appeal wherein para 6 it was declared that the appeal had been filed within the period of limitation while in para 17, assertion has been made

Revenue / respondent submissions

been made for setting aside the impugned order, allow the present appeal, to condone the delay in filing the appeals and remand them to the NCLAT for fresh decision on merits. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the prayer as has been made by the counsel for the appellant and has supported the Order passed by the NCLAT on the same grounds as has been put forth in the impugned order. Since the facts are borne out from the pleadings itself, it is asserted by the senior counsel for the respondents that no certified copy had been applied for by the appellant. The appeal was filed on 28.08.2023 whereas the impugned Order was pronounced by NCLT on 20th July 2023. The period expired on 19.08.2023 i.e. 30 days as provided under Section 61(2) of IBC that the counsel has stressed upon the fact that the appellant had not come to the Court with clean hands and is guilty of supressing facts. Reference has been made to para 6 and 17 of the grounds of appeal wherein para 6 it was declared that the appeal had been filed within the period of limitation while in para 17, assertion has been made

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

new stand has been taken in the application for condonation of delay contrary to the appeal. Whereas, as a matter of fact, it is admitted in both cases that certified copy was never applied for supporting the findings. For the reason given by NCLAT in the impugned order, Counsel has prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 11. Having considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and the law, as has been settled by this Court, we are unable to accept the prayer of the appellant and find the reasons as assigned by the Appellate Tribunal while passing the impugned

limitation. 12. The facts are not in dispute and therefore are not being repeated. As is apparent, first appeal was preferred along with the free certified copy which was

13. A perusal of the above Section would show that any party which is aggrieved by decision of the NCLT can file an appeal before the NCLAT. A feature which needs to be highlighted here is that this provision begins with a non obstante clause signifying an overriding effect of this provision in case of some contradistinction with the contents contemplated in the Companies Act, 2013. 14. Statutory time limit of 30 days within which an appeal can be preferred has been provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 61 of IBC. Proviso thereto allows an additional period of 15 days to file an appeal only on the satisfaction of NCLAT that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier within the initial period of 30 days. The restrictions with regard to allowing extension in the provisions stipulated is cloaked in such a manner that the provisions have to be strictly followed. The first aspect is that the period is extendable by 15 days and not beyond that. The limit, therefore, has been prescribed as regards the period within which the discretion has to be applied by NCLAT. That apart, this period cannot be claimed as a matter of right

for extension of the limitation rather it is laced with the satisfaction at the end of the NCLAT upon having shown sufficient cause. The discretion, therefore, has further been circumscribed and not merely left at the whims and fancy of NCLAT. The cumulative reading of the proviso would therefore entail that the extension of period so provided for has to be strictly construed and has not to be exercised in a liberal manner which highlights the legislative intent which has to be given effect to. 15. With these principles in mind, the applicability of the provisions as provided for under the Limitation Act, 1963 has to be entailed. 16. Rule 50 of the NCLAT Rules makes it mandatory for the Registry to send the certified copy of the final Order passed by NCLT to the concerned parties free of cost and the certified copies may be made available with costs as per the schedule of fees in all other cases. Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules deals with the presentation of the appeal in form NCLAT-1. Sub-rule 2 thereof mandates that an appeal shall be accompanied by the certified copy of the impugned order.

conclusively heard on one day and the Order is directly uploaded on the website on another. It was held that the period to compute limitation to file an appeal under Section 61 IBC from the Order of NCLT commences from the date of uploading of the Order by the Registry as the commencement of the period of Limitation is intrinsically linked to the date of pronouncement. 24. Therefore, the incident which triggers limitation to commence is the date of pronouncement of the Order and in case of non-pronouncement of the Order when the hearing concludes, the date on which the Order is pronounced or uploaded on the website. 25. However, where the judgment was pronounced in open Court, the period of limitation starts running from that very day. The appellant is however entitled to seek relief under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act for excluding the period during which the certified

pronouncement of the order and the benefit of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act is available only on an application for grant of certified copy of the Order having been filed till the date of preparation of the said certified copy. Since no such steps have been taken by the appellant for applying the certified copy, the appeal was beyond limitation. 28. The application of condonation of delay in the first appeal, disclosing no reasons whatsoever in filing the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The satisfaction has to be of the Appellate Tribunal and that too on justifiable grounds, which, as is apparent, from the perusal of the application there is none pleaded which can be said to be projecting sufficient cause for not approaching the Appellate Tribunal within the time stipulated under Section 61(2) of the IBC.

Operative decision and relief

29. The other reasons as has been assigned by the Appellate Tribunal for rejecting the application for condonation is clearly borne out from the pleading and the facts which do not call for any interference in the present appeals. 30. In view of the above, we uphold the impugned order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the NCLAT and dismiss the present appeals. 31. There shall be no orders on costs. 32. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. .....………………………………. J. [ ABHAY S. OKA ] ......………………………………. J. [ AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ] ………………………………………J. [ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ] NEW DELHI; APRIL 04, 2025

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• In National Spot Exchange Limited vs. Anil

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on Limitation from pronouncement date and exclusion for certified-copy preparation. The operative result is classified as Disposed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Limitation from pronouncement date and exclusion for certified-copy preparation. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
• Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the authenticated official judgment PDF

Related Finin2min guidance