Jaipur Development Authority vs Jaipur Metals & Electricals Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 84 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is limited to a further 15 days beyond the statutory period, under the proviso to Section 61(2), so an application seeking condonation of a delay exceeding that 15-day window cannot be entertained and must be dismissed. Where the appellant relies on time for obtaining a copy of the order, the exclusion under Section 12 of the Limitation Act applies only to a certified copy applied for after the order is passed, and the burden lies on the appellant to prove the date of that application; absent any record of such an application, limitation runs from the date of the order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Jaipur Development Authority ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Jaipur Metals & Electricals Ltd. ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Anish Maheshwari, Mr. Aayushmaan Vatsyayana, Mr. Vijay Kumar Maurya, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Ashu Bansal, Advocate for RP.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
06.03.2024: I.A. No. 260 of 2024, this is an application praying for
condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the present appeal. The order
impugned was passed on 12.04.2023 and the Appeal has been e-filed on
01.06.2023.
2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant
received the free of cost copy on 21.04.2023 hence limitation should be
counted from 21.04.2023 thus the Appeal is within condonable period.
3. We have considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the
Appellant and perused the record.
4. The appeal has been filed by the Appellant annexing the free of cost
copy which was sent by the Registry of the Tribunal. The benefit of exclusion
of period under Section 12 of the Limitation Act provides for the certified copy -2-
if applied by the Applicant after the order is passed. In this appeal, the
Appellant submits that they have applied for certified copy on 12.04.2023 but
there is nothing on record to prove that certified copy was applied on
12.04.2023. The computation of limitation in the present case shall begin
from the order date i.e. 12.04.2023. The order was passed on the I.A filed by
the appellant themselves and the order was passed in presence of the
Applicant.
5. We are of the view that in this Appeal there is a delay of 21 days as
prayed in the application itself. Our jurisdiction to condone the delay is
limited to 15 days only under Section 61 (2) proviso and the delay is beyond
15 days condonable period. We thus dismiss the delay condonation
application. In the result, the memo of Appal is rejected
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
R.N./N.N.
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