SANJAY PANDURANG KALATE versus VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 04-12-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 313 : 2023 INSC 1063
313
CASE DETAILS
SANJAY PANDURANG KALATE
v.
VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos.7467-7468 of 2023)
DECEMBER 04, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
J.B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether appeal instituted before the NCLAT 
was within limitation. In its impugned order, the NCLAT concluded that the 
appeal was barred by limitation on the ground that it was instituted beyond 
the outer limit of 45 days permissible under Section 61 of the Insolvency 
and Bankruptcy Code 2016. 
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – s.61 – The appellant fi led 
an interlocutory application before the NCLT alleging inter alia that 
the reply to the s.7 application on behalf of the Corporate Debtor was 
fi led by respondent no.2 without authorization of the Board of Directors 
or intimation to the appellant – On 17.05.2023, the NCLT heard the 
application – The order of the NCLT was not pronounced – The order 
was uploaded by the Registry of the NCLT on 30.05.2023 though the 
order carries the date of 17.05.2023 – NCLT dismissed appellant’s 
application – Appeal against the order was e-fi led before the NCLAT – 
NCLAT dismissed the application as barred by limitation – Propriety:
Held: In the instant case, the cause list for 17.05.2023 (NCLT) placed 
on record by the appellant indicates that the case was listed for admission 
and not for pronouncement – Further, on a specifi c query of the Court, it is 
not in dispute between counsel for the appellant and the respondent, that 
no substantive order was passed on 17.05.2023 by the NCLT – In these 
circumstances, limitation would not begin to run on 17.05.2023 which was 
the date on which hearings concluded – As no order was passed before 
30.05.2023, there was no occasion for the appellant to lodge an application 
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
for a certifi ed copy on 17.05.2023 – Time for fi ling an appeal would 
commence only when the order appealed from was uploaded since prior to 
that date no order was pronounced – The period of limitation began to run 
on 30.05.2023 – The 30 day limitation period provided in s.61(2) of the IBC 
concluded on 29.06.2023 – Though the appeal was fi led beyond the period 
of thirty days, it was within the condonable period of fi fteen days – This 
Court is of the considered view that the appeal should be restored to the 
NCLAT for reconsidering whether the appellant has shown suffi  cient cause 
for condoning the delay beyond thirty days – Therefore, the impugned order 
of the NCLAT declining to condone the delay is set aside and the proceedings 
are restored to the fi le of the NCLAT. [Paras 19 and 21]
Limitation – What stops limitation from running, date of E-fi ling 
of appeal or physical copy of appeal:
Held: It was settled in Sanket Agarwal case that the date of e-fi ling 
of the appeal and not fi ling of the physical copy of the appeal stops the 
limitation from running. [Para 22]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat (2022) 2 SCC 244 – held inapplicable.
Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Private Limited 2023 SCC 
OnLine SC 976 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.7467-7468 
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2023 of the National 
Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Company 
Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1209 of 2023 and I.A. No.4246 of 2023.
Appearances:
Shyam Divan, Nakul Dewan, Sr. Advs., Sandeep S. Salunkhe, Satyajit 
A Desai, Amit K. Pathak, Kiran Shinde, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K. 
Mutyalwar, Gajanan N Tirthkar, Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Ms. Anagha S. 
Desai, Advs. for the Appellant.
315
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Samir Malik, Varun Kalra, Mahip Singh, Farha 
Malik, M/s. D.S.K. Legal, Advs. for the Respondents. 
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. Admit.
2. These appeals arise under Section 62 of the Insolvency and 
Bankruptcy Code 20161 from a judgement dated 14 September 2023 of the 
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.2 The NCLAT dismissed the 
appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai3 
on the ground of limitation. 
3. At the outset, it is clarifi ed that the fi ndings in this judgement are 
limited to a determination of the question of limitation. The detailed facts 
and averments on the merits of the larger dispu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.