Vnr Infrastructures Ltd vs Rama Raghava Reddy
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.438/2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The limitation period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for filing an appeal runs from the date on which the impugned order is pronounced, not from the date on which a copy of the order is made available to the appellant. Where an appeal is filed beyond the thirty-day period under Section 61(2) but within the condonable period of fifteen days, the Tribunal may condone the delay; where the registry has wrongly computed limitation so that no condonation application was filed, the appellant's omission is not negligence and the delay may be condoned. Where the appeal is filed beyond the outer limit of the condonable period (forty-five days from pronouncement), the appeal is barred by limitation and must be dismissed, and a judgment of the Supreme Court interpreting the limitation rule applies retrospectively to pending matters unless it is expressly made prospective.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) TA (AT) No.176/2021 (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.438/2019) (IA No.1419/2019) In the matter of: VNR Infrastructure Ltd. ... Appellant V SS Rail Works Private Limited Through its Managing Director Mr. A. Srinivasulu Reddy ... Respondent Present : For Appellant : Mr. T. Ravichandran, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Malayanur Anil Kumar, Advocate With TA (AT) No.177/2021 (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.440/2019) (IA No.1426/2019) In the matter of: VNR Infrastructures Limited Through its Liquidator T.S.N. Raja ... Appellant V Dy. CSTE/Const. & 2 Ors. ... Respondents Present : For Appellant : Mr. T. Ravichandran, Advocate For Respondents : No Appearance With TA (AT) No.179/2021 (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.444/2019) (IA No.1445/2019) In the matter of: VNR Infrastructures Limited ... Appellant V Rama Raghava Reddy ... Respondent
TA (AT) Nos. 176, 177, 179 & 187/2021 Page 1 of 5 Present : For Appellant : Mr. T. Ravichandran, Advocate For Respondents : No Appearance With TA (AT) No.187/2021 (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.567/2019) (IA No.1747/2019) In the matter of: VNR Infrastructures Limited Through its Liquidator Mr. T.S.N. Raja ... Appellant V The Chief Engineer Construction-VIII, North Frontier Railways ...Respondent Present : For Appellant : Mr. T. Ravichandran, Advocate For Respondents : No Appearance
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) [Per: Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical)]
1) These are four connected company appeals, TA (AT) No.176/2021 (CA
(AT) (Ins) No.438/2019), TA (AT) No.179/2021 (CA (AT) (Ins) No.444/2019),
TA (AT) No.187/2021 (CA (AT) (Ins) No.567/2019), and TA (AT) No.177/2021
(CA (AT) (Ins) No.440/2019) these have been filed under Section 61 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, thereby challenging the order of Ld.
NCLT, Hyderabad, in the respective interlocutory applications filed in CP(IB)
No.12/10/HDB/2017.
2) When the Appeals were taken up for consideration, Ld. Counsel for the
Respondent has raised an objection that, the Appeals would be barred by
limitation.
TA (AT) Nos. 176, 177, 179 & 187/2021 Page 2 of 5
3) Accordingly, each of the Appeals were taken up for detailed scrutiny.
a. In TA No.176/2021, the impugned order was passed in IA No.676/2018
in CP(IB) No.12/10/HDB/2017 on 26.02.2019 and the Appeal was
preferred before the Principal Bench of this Appellate Tribunal on
12.04.2019 with a delay of 14 days but without a condone delay
application. Since, the said appeal was preferred before this Tribunal as
back as on 2019, as per the prevailing practice, the Registry has
computed the limitation period from the date on which the impugned
order was made available to the Appellant (i.e., 13.03.2019) and
accordingly on scrutiny it was reported that the appeal does not suffer
from any delay. Accordingly, the Appellant did not file the application
seeking the condonation of delay. It is to be made clear at this stage that,
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of V. Nagarajan has made it
clear that the limitation period will commence from the date of
pronouncement of the order and not from the date on which the order
copy is made available. Thus, there is a delay of 14 days which is well
within the upper limit of condonable period of 15 days, as per the
provision of Section 61(2) of the Code. Since, non-filing of condone
delay application is because of the observation of Registry that there is
no delay, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Appellant was neither
negligent nor inconsistent. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the
appeal TA No.176/2021 is held to be maintainable.
TA (AT) Nos. 176, 177, 179 & 187/2021 Page 3 of 5 b. In TA No.187/2021, the impugned order was passed in IA No.185/2018
in CP(IB) No.12/10/HDB/2017 on 03.04.2019. The Appellant has filed
the appeal on 16.05.2019. He has also filed the application for
condonation of 11 days and the same has already been condoned by the
order passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal on 24.05.2019 and
accordingly, the Appeal is held to be maintainable.
c. In TA No.179/2021, the impugned order was passed on 05.03.2019 in
IA No.310/2018 in CP(IB) No.12/10/HDB/2017. This Appeal against
the said impugned order was preferred before this Tribunal on
23.04.2019. There happens to be a delay of 19 days, if limitation is
construed to commence from 24.04.2019. The Appellants have not filed
the condone delay application because the Registry of NCLAT has
declared that there is no delay by computing limitation from the date
where the order was made ready, i.e., 25.03.2019. However, as per the
principles laid down in the matter of V. Nagarajan (supra), the
calculation of limitation should commence from the date of
pronouncement of the order. If we take the principle laid down in the
V. Nagarajan case, the delay in filing the instant appeal exceeds the
maximum condonable period of 15 days provided under Section 61(2)
of the Code. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanishk Sinha & Anr.
v. State of West Bengal & Anr. has held that all the judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court are inherently retrospective unless they are
TA (AT) Nos. 176, 177, 179 & 187/2021 Page 4 of 5 expressly made prospective. Therefore, the ratio of V. Nagarajan
(supra) will apply to this case. In that view, since the instant appeal
exceeds the outer limit of 44 days. Hence, the appeal is held to be barred
by limitation and the same is accordingly dismissed.
d. In TA No.177/2021, the impugned order was passed on 26.02.2019 in
IA No.164/2018 in CP (IB) No.12/10/HDB/2017. The Appellant has
filed the appeal on 15.04.2019. He has also filed the application for
condonation of 11 days and the same has already been condoned by the
order passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal on 24.04.2019 and
accordingly, the Appeal is eminently maintainable.
4) List TA (AT) No.176/2021 (CA (AT) (Ins) No.438/2019), TA (AT)
No.187/2021 (CA (AT) (Ins) No.567/2019) and TA (AT) No.177/2021 (CA (AT)
(Ins) No.440/2019) on 17.09.2026.
[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)
[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)
27 / 08 / 2026 AR/MS/AK
TA (AT) Nos. 176, 177, 179 & 187/2021 Page 5 of 5
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