Dayanidhi Real Estate Private Limited ... vs Respondent
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 107 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal sets aside an order rejecting condonation of delay where that order was passed without consideration of the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 (Cognizance for extension of limitation, order dated 10.01.2022), which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 from computing limitation in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, and provided a 90-day limitation window from 01.03.2022 for matters whose limitation would have expired within that period, with the longer of the two periods applying.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Dayanidhi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ....Appellants
Vs.
................. ....Respondent
Present: For Appellant:- Mr. M.S. Vishnu Shankar, Mr. Pavan Godiawala, Mr. Sriram P., Ms. Athira G. Nair, Advocates.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
15.07.2022: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant.
2. The Appellant has preferred this Appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied
by the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal
(Ahmedabad Court-2) in IA 26 of 2022 in CP(CAA)/15(AHM)2022 in
CA(CAA)/2(AHM)2021 whereby and whereunder the Application filed with a
prayer seeking condonation of delay in filing second motion petition by the
Appellant (herein) was rejected.
3. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that delay application was
heard and on the first date itself i.e. 23.03.2022, the same was rejected as the
delay was summarily rejected without affording any opportunity and without
appreciating the facts, legal submissions as well as the recent Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby the period of COVID has been exempted
from counting the period of limitation under the limitation Act.
4. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the aspects
of the matter for condonation of delay while passing the impugned order dated
23.03.2022.
-2-
5. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and going through the
order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Miscellaneous Application
No. 21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu
Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 IN RE: Cognizance for extension of
limitation dated 10.01.2022" wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court have
passed the following directions:
" 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions:
I. The Order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the -3- Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
6. We are of the considered view that the order passed by the National
Company Law Tribunal (Ahmedabad Court-2) in IA 26 of 2022 in
CP(CAA)/15(AHM)2022 in CA(CAA)/2(AHM)2021 cannot be sustained and is
hereby set aside and hence the instant Appeal is hereby allowed subject to
deposit of Rs. 11,000/- by the Appellant before the Ld. Registrar of this
Appellate Tribunal within two weeks from today and the Ld. Registrar is
directed that the aforementioned amount be used for the 'welfare of the
employees' of this Appellate Tribunal.
With these directions, the Appeal is allowed and stand disposed of.
7. Registry to upload the Order on the website of this Appellate Tribunal
and send the copy of this Order to the National Company Law Tribunal
(Ahmedabad Court-2) and Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal for compliance.
[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)
[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
R.N./Kam./ Company Appeal (AT) No. 107 of 2022
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free