Rig Mining Private Limited vs Abhay Narayan Manudhane Liquidator Of ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 189 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appeal is filed beyond the condonable period, and the delay is attributed to a certified copy of the impugned order being applied for only after the limitation period had run, the delay cannot be condoned; an appellant's inability to obtain an online copy of the order does not excuse the failure to apply for a certified copy within time, since the order was known from the date it was passed and an application for certified copy could have been made in time to file the appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 189 of 2025 & I.A. No. 753 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Rig Mining Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Abhay Narayan Manudhane, ...Respondents Liquidator of Gupta Coal India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Present: For Appellant : For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
21.02.2025: I.A. No. 753 of 2025: This is an application praying for
condonation of 26 days delay in filing the appeal. The order was passed on
17.10.2024 and the appeal has been e-filed on 13.12.2024. Ld. Counsel for
the appellant has referred to the last page of impugned order where date of
applying for certified copy is 19.11.2024. Order has been passed on
17.10.2024 no benefit can be given to the appellant since copy has been
applied after 30 days. The appeal having been filed with delay of 26 days
which is beyond the condonable period, hence we are not inclined to entertain
the application.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that online copy was
not available hence he could apply only on 19.11.2024. We failed to
understand that when order was passed it was open for appellant to file an
application for certified copy in event the appellant intended to file an appeal
whereas certified copy having been applied after 30 days.
3. We are of the view that on the said ground no benefit can be given to
the appellant. Delay is beyond condonable period, delay condonation
application is rejected, memo of appeal is also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) harleen/NN
2 of 2 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 189 of 2025 & I.A. No. 753 of 2025
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