Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Nrc Limited & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 13 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, an appeal must be filed within 30 days of the order, and the Appellate Tribunal's power to condone further delay is limited to a period of 15 days; a delay beyond that cannot be condoned on the ground that the appellant only later learned it had to appeal. Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which extends limitation for relief from the consequences of a mistake, applies to suits and applications for which limitation is prescribed, and has no application to an appeal governed by the limitation period prescribed for appeals. A decision of the High Court concerning a particular regulation under the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission framework is not relevant where the question concerns the limitation for an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company ...Appellant Ltd.
Versus NRC Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Advocate Soumik Ghosal, Advocate Akash Kotari, Advocate Gaurav Singh, Advocate Neerav Shah. For Respondent: Advocate Himanshu Satija, Advocate Geetika Sharma
ORDER
17.01.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
2. I.A. No. 37 of 2023 has been filed by the Appellant praying for condonation
of 244 days delay in filing the Appeal.
3. The Appellant who is Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company
Ltd. has filed this Appeal challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority
dated 13.03.2020 by which Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating
Authority.
2
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant came to know
about the fact that the order need to be challenged only on 29.06.2022 when
writ petition was filed by Successful Resolution Applicant seeking direction
against the Appellant. It is submitted that Appellant was not aware that he has
to challenge the Order by that time and thereafter this Appeal has been filed on
22nd November, 2022.
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further relied on Section 17(1)(c) of
the Limitation Act, 1963 to submit that Appellant is entitled to benefit of
limitation.
6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on Judgement of Bombay
High Court in Writ Petition No. 9906 of 2010 in the matter of "Namco Industries
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors."
7. We have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant
and perused the record.
8. In the present case, the Order which has been challenged is dated
13.03.2020 and the Appeal has been filed in this Tribunal on 22nd November,
2022. The limitation for filing an Appeal is 30 days as per Section 61 of the I&B
Code, 2016. The power of this tribunal for condoning the delay is of only 15 days
as provided under Section 61(2) proviso of the Code.
9. The submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant that he came to know
to file an Appeal only on 29.06.2022 when Writ Petition was filed by the
Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 13 of 2023 3
Successful Resolution Applicant seeking direction against the Appellant is the
reason which cannot clothe jurisdiction to this tribunal to condone the delay
beyond 15 days.
10. Coming to the submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant relating to
Section 17(1)(c), Section 17(1)(c) provides as follows:
"17. Effect of fraud or mistake.--
(1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,--
(a).......
(b).......
(c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or"
Section 17(1) deals with period of limitation in the case of any suit or
application. On the face of it, Section 17(1)(c) does not come into play in an
Appeal when limitation is prescribed for an Appeal. Therefore, we are in the
present case, considering the limitation for filing an Appeal hence, Section
17(1)(c) has no application in the facts of the present case.
11. Coming to the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court relied on by the
Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the said judgement deals with Regulation 10
of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code
and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations 2005. We are in the present case,
Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 13 of 2023 4
not concerned with such regulation hence reference of that judgement is not
relevant for the present issues.
12. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that Application filed by the
Appellant praying for condonation of delay of 244 days cannot be accepted. The
Delay Condonation Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Memo of Appeal
is rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
Basant/nn
Company Appeal (AT) Ins. No. 13 of 2023
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