V NAGARAJAN versus SKS ISPAT AND POWER LTD.& ORS.

Citation: [2021] 14 S.C.R. 736 · Decided: 22-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
736
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
[2021] 14 S.C.R. 736
V NAGARAJAN
v.
SKS ISPAT AND POWER LTD.& ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3327 of 2020)
OCTOBER 22, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH
AND B.V.NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.61(1), 238, 238-
A – Limitation Act, 1963 – ss.12(2), 29(2) – Companies Act 2013 –
s.420(3) – National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 – r.50 –
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules – r.22 – NCLT
vide order dtd. 31.12.19 dismissed the appellant’s application in a
liquidation proceeding, seeking interim relief against invocation of
a bank guarantee by Respondent No.10 against the Corporate
Debtor – Appellant filed appeal, dismissed by NCLAT as barred by
limitation – On appeal, held: Owing to the special nature of the
IBC, the aggrieved party is expected to exercise due diligence and
apply for a certified copy upon pronouncement of the order it seeks
to assail, in consonance with the requirements of r.22(2), NCLAT
Rules – s.12(2), Limitation Act allows for an exclusion of the time
requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree or order appealed
against – It is not open to a person aggrieved by an order under
the IBC to await the receipt of a free certified copy u/s.420(3),
Companies Act, 2013 r/w r.50 of the NCLT and prevent limitation
from running – No effort made on the part of the appellant to secure
a certified copy of the said order, relied on the date of the uploading
of the order (12.03.20) on the website – Period of limitation for
filing an appeal u/s.61(1) against the order of the NCLT dtd.
31.12.19, expired on 30.01.20 in view of the thirty-day period
prescribed u/s.61(2) – Any scope for a condonation of delay expired
on 14.02.20, in view of the outer limit of fifteen days prescribed
under the proviso to s.61(2) – NCLAT correctly dismissed the appeal
on limitation.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.61(1) – Limitation
period for filing an appeal against order of NCLT – Held: Litigant
has to file its appeal within thirty days, which can be extended up
736
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
737
to a period of fifteen days, and no more, upon showing sufficient
cause – Court is not empowered to condone delays beyond statutory
prescriptions in special statutes containing a provision for limitation.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.61(2) – Companies
Act 2013 – s.420(3) – National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016
– r.50 – Held: s.420(3), Companies Act r/w r.50, NCLT Rules enables
a party to compute limitation from the date of receipt of the statutorily
mandated free certified copy, without having to file its own
application – However, Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood
Products Pvt Ltd clarified that the statutory mandate of a free copy
is not to enable litigants to take two bites at the apple where they
could compute limitation from either when the certified copy is
received on the litigant’s application or received as a free copy
from the registry- whichever is later.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – National Company
Law Appellate Tribunal Rules – rr.14, 22 – Order passed under IBC
– Appeal to NCLAT – Annexation of certified copy, if mandatory –
Held: r.22(2) of the NCLAT Rules mandates the certified copy being
annexed to an appeal, which continues to bind litigants under the
IBC – While it is true that the tribunals, and even Supreme Court,
may choose to exempt parties from compliance with this procedural
requirement in the interest of substantial justice, as re-iterated in
r.14 of the NCLAT Rules, the discretionary waiver does not act as
an automatic exception where litigants make no efforts to pursue a
timely resolution of their grievance – Companies Act, 2013 – s.420(3).
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.61(1), (2) –
Companies Act 2013 – s.421(3) – Held: ss.61(1) and (2) of the IBC
consciously omit the requirement of limitation being computed from
when the “order is made available to the aggrieved party”, in
contradistinction to s.421(3) of the Companies Act.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.9 – Right to file suit and
the right to file appeal – Distinction between – Discussed –
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.60, 61(1), (2), 62 and
63.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.61(2) – Limitation
Act, 1963 – s.12 – Held: s.12 provides guidance on reckoning the
period of limitation and excludes the time taken by a party for
V NAGARAJAN v. SKS ISPAT AND POWER LTD.& ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
738
SUPREME COURT RE

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