Everlight Electronics Co Ltd vs Hq Lamps Manufacturing Co Pvt Ltd

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1630 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5949, 5950 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Everlight Electronics Co. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt Ltd ...Respondent

Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Ankit Parhar, Sneha Dey, Adv.

For Respondent : Mr. Vipin Singh Bansal, Maynak Singh, Azeem A Dost, Subramaniam S., Amrita Verma, Adv. ORDER

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain:

I.A No. 5949 of 2024: This application is filed by the Appellant

for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing the present appeal.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 61 of the

Code to challenge the order dated 14.06.2024 passed by the

Tribunal by which an application filed by the Appellant under

Section 9 of the Code bearing CP (IB) No. 17/ALD/2020 has been

dismissed.

3. Section 61 of the Code deals with the appeals and appellate

authority. The relevant part of the Section 61 of the Code is

reproduced as under:-

"61. Appeals and Appellate Authority.

2 (1)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013, any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

(2)Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal:

Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days."

4. As per Section 61 of the Code the period prescribed for

filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is 30 days.

However, in terms of the proviso to Section 61(2) the Appellate

Authority has the jurisdiction to allow the appeal to be filed even

after the expiry of prescribed period of 30 days if it is satisfied

that there was sufficient reason for not filing the appeal within

prescribed period but such period cannot be extended more

than 15 days.

5. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of National Spot Exchange Limited Vs. Anil Kohli, the

Appellate Authority does not have the jurisdiction to condone the

delay beyond the period of 15 days in any case.

6. In the present case, the impugned order was passed on

14.06.2024. The Appeal was required to be filed by the

appellant within the prescribed period of 30 days which has to 3

be computed from 15.06.2024 in terms of the Section 12(1) of

the Limitation Act, 1963. The period of 30 days counted from

15.06.2024 expired on 14.07.2024.

7. The period of 15 days provided in the proviso to Section

61(2) counted from 14.07.2024 expired on 29.07.2024. The appeal

has been e-filed on 02.08.2024 i.e after the period of 4 days of

expiry even of the period of 15 days on 29.07.2024.

8. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Court

should exclude the period of two days spent by the Appellant in

obtaining certified copy of the impugned order which was

applied on 01.07.2024 and was received on 02.07.2024.

9. Even if the aforesaid period of two days are excluded in

view of Section 12 of the Act, the appeal would still be barred by

two days.

10. Counsel for the Appellant has then argued that before

14.07.2024, when the prescribed period of 30 days expired there

were three holidays i.e. on 17.06.2024, the Court was closed

because of public holiday, on 29.06.2024 it was closed because

of 4th Saturday and 13.07.2024 it was again closed because of

second Saturday. He has though not denied that the appeal has

been filed after the expiry of period of 45 days. Counsel for the 4

Appellant has referred to a decision of this Court passed in

I.A No. 2587 of 2023 (Sandeep Anand Vs. Gopal Lal Baser)

decided on 03.07.2023. This decision is not applicable because

it has been held by this Court that the benefit of closer of court is

only available in respect of prescribed period of limitation i.e. 30

days. In this regard, reference may be had to Section 4 of the

Act in which it is provided that where the prescribed period for

any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court

is closed the suit, appeal or application may be instituted,

preferred or made on the day when the court reopens. The term

used in Section 4 of the Act is "prescribed period" which as per

Section 61 of the Code is 30 days and not 45 days. In this

background, the application which was sought to be filed for

condonation of delay in the case of Sandeep Anand (Supra) was

dismissed by this Court and thus, the said decision is not of

any help to the Appellant.

11. Similarly, the holidays on 17.06.2024, 29.06.2024 and

13.07.2024 which fell before 14.07.2024 (during the prescribed

period) is no help to the Appellant because it is not the case

where the Appellant has filed the appeal just on the reopening of

the Court when the prescribed period of limitation was to expire

rather the appellant has filed the appeal after the expiry of 45 5

days i.e. 15 days prescribed as the extended period in proviso to

Section 61(2) for which the Appellant has to show sufficient cause

for condonation of delay and is not part of the prescribed period

of limitation.

12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, there is hardly any

merit in the present application which calls for any interference as

the appeal has been clearly filed after the expiry of period of 45

days and therefore, this Court does not have the jurisdiction to

condone the delay.

13. The application is hereby dismissed.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1630 of 2024

Since, we have dismissed the application for condonation of

delay, therefore, the appeal is not found to be duly constituted and

the same is hereby dismissed as such.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) New Delhi 19th February, 2025.

Sheetal