Atul Babulal Prajapati & Anr vs Suhas Dinkar Bhattbhatt & Ors

Atul Babulal Prajapati & Anr. ...Appellants (Suspended Director and Promoter of WSH Pvt. Ltd.)

Versus

Suhas Dinkar Bhattbhatt & Ors ...Respondents

Present: For Appellants: Ms. Honey Satpal, Mr. Nipun Singhvi, Ms. Mayur Jugtawat, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Mandeep Skngh Salyon, Advocate for R-1.

ORDER

(06 th March, 2025)

Ashok Bhushan, J.

This is an application praying for condonation of delay of 15 days in

filing the Appeal. The Appeal has been filed against the order dated

01.10.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law

Tribunal) Ahmedabad, Division Bench, Court-1 by which application filed by

the Resolution Professional being IA No.556/NCLT/AHM/2021 has been

partly allowed and partly rejected. Appellant aggrieved by the said order has

filed this Appeal.

2

2. This Appeal has been e-filed on 15.11.2024. The Appellant's case in

application is that Appellant had gained the knowledge of the order only after

a week of pronouncement. Appellant is a vegetable vendor and he failed to

understand the intricacy of legal process and the strict timeline. Appellant

approached its counsel on 10.11.2024 thereafter, the appeal has been

prepared and e-filed on 15.11.2024. In support of delay condonation, an

additional affidavit has been filed by the appellant where appellant has

pleaded that it came to know about the order on 23.10.2024 and his arguing

counsel was not present which is apparent from the order sheet. Appellant

has also stated about his ill-health. It is pleaded that as per Rule 3 of the

NCLAT Rules, 2016, the day on which the judgment is pronounced to be

excluded, hence, the appeal filed on 15.11.2024 is within condonable period.

3. Counsel for the Respondent filed a reply to the application as well as

additional-affidavit in reply. The case of the Respondent is that Appeal has

been filed on 46th day, hence, Appeal has been filed beyond condonable period

and delay condonation application deserves to be rejected. It is pleaded that

the delay cannot exceed the statutory outer limit of 15 days. Additional

affidavit in reply-affidavit further pleads that applicant/appellant has made

incorrect statement that he became aware of the order through e-mail dated

23.10.2024. Details were communicated vide e-mail dated 09.10.2024.

Further whatsapp call was made to the Appellant on 01.10.2024 by liquidator

on his mobile number. It is further stated that the medical certificate filed

along with affidavit are not genuine and applicant has not shown any

sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

I.A. No.8554 of 2024

IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2273 of 2024 3

4. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

5. The first question which need to be answered is that as to whether the

appeal is filed within condonable period of 15 days or appeal has been filed

beyond 15 days. It is settled law that jurisdiction to condone the delay vested

in this Tribunal is only 15 days as per Section 61(2) proviso. The order was

delivered on 01.10.2024. As per Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, the day

from which the said period reckoned shall be excluded. Thus, 01.10.2024 has

to be excluded. Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 is as follows:-

"3. Computation of time period.- Where a period is prescribed by the Act and these rules or under any other law or is fixed by the Appellate Tribunal for doing any act, in computing the time, the day from which the said period is to be reckoned shall be excluded, and if the last day expires on a day when the office of the Appellate Tribunal is closed, that day and any succeeding day on which the Appellate Tribunal remains closed shall also be excluded."

6. For computing the 30 days' period, if the last day expires on a day when

the office of the Tribunal is closed, that day and any succeeding day on which

the Appellate Tribunal remains closed shall also be excluded. After excluding

01.10.2024 from computation, limitation of 30 days was expiring on

31.10.2024. From 30.10.2024 to 03.11.2024, it was holidays both for the

Court as well as the Registry (Diwali Holidays). We in our judgment in

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1862 of 2024- "BSE Limited vs. I.A. No.8554 of 2024 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2273 of 2024 4

Mrudula Brodie & Ors." delivered on 21.02.2025 has held that for

computing 30 days' period, if 30th day is fallen on holiday, the said period also

need to be excluded. In the present case, 03.11.2024 being holiday for office

also, the last day of limitation for filing the appeal on 04.11.2024. Appeal

admittedly has been filed on 15.11.2024, hence, while computing the

limitation as per Rule 3, the delay in filing the appeal shall be 11 days.

Appellant in the application, however, has come up with the case that 15 days'

delay be condoned. We, thus, are of the view that delay in filing the appeal is

within the condonable period, delay being only 11 days in filing the appeal.

7. Now coming to the submission of the Respondent that the case of the

Appellant is that he came to know about the order only on 23.10.2024 and

he was communicated on 01.10.2024 itself by WhatsApp call by liquidator.

Appellant is not claiming any benefit from date of knowledge of the order. As

per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "V. Nagarajan vs.

SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Ors. (2022) 2 SCC 244", limitation for

filing the appeal commences on the day when order is pronounced. The

question as to when the appellant came to know about the order is

inconsequential, since the limitation for filing the appeal shall begin from the

date of pronouncement of the order and 01.10.2024 being to be excluded as

per Rule 3, 30th day shall be on 31.10.2024 which as noted above was holiday

for the office. Appeal could have been filed on 04.11.2024 i.e. on the re-

opening day.

8. Insofar as submission of the Respondent that medical document which

has been filed by the Appellant along with additional-affidavit which are not

I.A. No.8554 of 2024 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2273 of 2024 5

genuine, medical certificate only indicate that Appellant was suffering from

backache since 25.09.2024. The said medical certificate has no bearing in the

present case since delay of 15 days has to be explained by the appellant after

expiry of period. Appellant in his application for condonation as well as in

additional affidavit has pleaded that he has approached his counsel on

10.11.2024 and gave instructions. The delay in filing the appeal is within

condonable period as noted above. It is further to be noted that Appellant

claims to be vegetable vendor who has pleaded that he is not familiar with

legal procedure.

9. We find that there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay which is

within condonable period. Delay condonation application is allowed.

10. List the appeal for admission on 10.03.2024.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) New Delhi Anjali

I.A. No.8554 of 2024 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2273 of 2024