Rajan Rawat Resolution Professional ... vs Mr Kishanlal Shivramji Sharma
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 167 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an order is dictated in open court on a given date, the limitation period for an appeal against it begins to run from the next day, and the date of dictation rather than the later date of uploading governs; a party's own contemporaneous record of the order as having been pronounced in open court is conclusive evidence of that dictation, and a contrary assertion made later in a delay-condonation application cannot displace it. Where no substantive order has been passed or pronounced on the date in question, the date of uploading of the order may be treated as the date of the order for the purpose of computing limitation, as the Supreme Court held in the authority relied upon; that principle does not apply where the order was in fact dictated in open court, and it is therefore distinguished on the facts.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Rajan Rawat, RP Future Supply Chain Solutions Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Kishanlal Shivramji Sharma ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Dhananjaya Sud, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Prasad Abhyankar and Ms. Aditi Deshpande, Advocates.
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 188 of 2025 & I.A. No. 748 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Rajan Rawat, RP Future Supply Chain Solutions Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Ashok Kishanlal Sharm ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Dhananjaya Sud, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Prasad Abhyankar and Ms. Aditi Deshpande, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
09.04.2025 : I.A. No. 657 & 748 of 2025
1. These are applications praying for condonation of delay in filing of the
appeal.
2. The order impugned was passed on 30.09.2024 and this appeal has
been e-filed on 24.12.2024, there is a delay of 55 days in filing of the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the order was
not fully dictated on 30.09.2024 and Court only said that Court is inclined to
allow the application.
4. A reply has been filed by the respondent to the delay condonation
application, where respondent has referred to the minutes of the CoC dated
01.10.2024 where the order passed on 30.09.2024 has been noted. The
minutes which has been recorded by the RP itself at Page 208 of the Appeal
Paper Book records following:
"...the Hon'ble NCLT, the Counsel of the Resolution Professional and the Counsel of Mr. Ashok Kishanlal Sharma and Mr. Kishanlal Sharma and considering the Judgment dated 17.12.2021 passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT in Contempt Case (AT) No. 03 of 2020 in C.A. (AT) (I) No. 104 of 2019, the Hon'ble NCLT while allowing the Applications bearing I.A. No. 5721 of 2023 and I.A. No. 73 of 2024 filed by Mr. Ashok Kishanlal Sharma and Mr. Kishanlal Sharma respectively, before the Hon'ble NCLT directed the Resolution Professional to pay the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process Costs to Mr. Ashok Kishanlal Sharma and Mr. Kishanlal Sharma in terms of the provisions of the Code and the Regulations made thereunder."
5. The RP in the minutes have clearly stated that NCLT while allowing the
application has issued direction to RP to pay the CIRP cost to Mr. Ashok
Krishanlal Sharma and Mr. Krishan Lal Sharma.
6. We fail to see any substance in submission of the appellant that order
was not fully dictated. The affidavit filed in a reply states that order was
dictated in the Court. When the order was dictated in the open Court, the
limitation shall begin to run on the next date and the delay in filing of the
appeal is 55 days.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 167 & 188 of 2025 2 of 3
7. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that impugned
order was uploaded subsequently hence he can rely on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Sanjay Pandurang Kalate' Vs.
'Vistara ITC (India) Ltd. & Ors.' in Civil Appeal Nos. 7467-7468/2023.
'Sanjay Pandurang Kalate' (Supra), was a case where Hon'ble Supreme
Court took the view that when no substantive order was passed on the date,
the date of uploading order shall be treated to be date of order and the
limitation can be given. Present case the facts are entirely different, order was
dictated in the open court which has been captured by the RP in its minutes
of the next date, dated 01.10.2024 and the submission in the delay
condonation application that no order was dictated in the open court is
contrary to own minutes of the RP recorded on 01.10.2024.
8. We, thus are of the view that limitation shall commence on 01.10.2024
itself and appeal having been filed beyond condonable period, the delay
condonation applications cannot be allowed.
Delay condonation applications rejected. Memo of appeal is also
rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 167 & 188 of 2025 3 of 3
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