Sanjeevani Krishna Kamalakar vs Birendra Kumar Agarwal

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 764 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2928 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: Sanjeevani Krishna Kamlakar ...Appellant

Versus

Birendra Kumar Agarwal & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kunal Cheema, Mr. Sanket Gupta, Shubham C., Adv. For Respondents : None

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain: (Oral)

02.06.2025 : I.A No. 2928 of 2025: This application is filed by the

Applicant/Appellant for seeking condonation of delay in filing the present

appeal.

2. The Appellant has counted the period of delay of 14 days from the date

of knowledge of the order on 15.03.2025.

3. In this case, one I.A No. 381 of 2025 was filed by the RP for extension

of 180 days from 19.10.2024 for completion of the CIRP. The said application

was dismissed by the Tribunal on 05.03.2025 and liquidation was ordered by

appointing the liquidator.

3. The decision of the Tribunal dated 05.03.2025 has now been challenged

by this appeal which has been e-filed on 28.04.2025.

4. According to the Appellant, he being not a party to the lis, came to know

about the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 on 15.03.2025, therefore, the limitation is to be counted from 15.03.2025. It is submitted that though the

statutory period for filing of the appeal is 30 days but as per Section 61(2) the

Appellant is still entitled to a period of 15 days in case a sufficient reason is

shown. It is submitted that since the delay is only 14 days which is within

the grace period of 15 days, therefore, it deserves to be condoned.

5. We have heard counsel for the Applicant/Appellant and perused the

record.

6. The appeal can be filed under Section 61 by an aggrieved person within

a period of 30 days. The impugned order was passed on 05.03.2025. The

limitation is to be counted from 06.03.2025. The total period spent in the

month of March are 26 days. Since the appeal has been filed on 28.04.2025,

therefore, the total period consumed by the Appellant is 54 days. Out of 54

days if 30 days are excluded then there remains 24 days and out of 24 days

if 15 days are also excluded then there is a delay of 9 days, therefore, in our

considered opinion, the appeal has been filed even beyond the period of 15

days. The law is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V

Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd.& Ors. that the limitation has to be

counted from the date of passing of the order and not from the date of

knowledge. Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon a decision in the case

of Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 408 of 2023

to contend that the date of knowledge has to be given some importance,

however, he has failed to cite any judgment contrary to the view taken by the

Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of V. Nagrajan (Supra). We are bound by

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Nagarajan (Supra) in which it is held that the limitation has to be counted from the date of the

decision and not from the date of knowledge.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no merit in

the present application especially in view of the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme court in the case of National Spot Exchange Ltd. Vs. Anil Kohli in

which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that the period of limitation

beyond the period of 15 days (grace period) cannot be condoned by any court

much less the Hon'ble Supreme Court even exercising its power under Article

142 of the Constitution of India,

8. Thus, the application is without any merit and the same is hereby

dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is also dismissed.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

Sc/RR