NCLAT Rules, Limitation Period For Filing Appeal Begins From Date Of Pronouncement If Substantive Order Is Passed
Pranav B Prem
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka, and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Members), dismissed two delay condonation applications filed by Rajan Rawat, Resolution Professional (RP) of Future Supply Chain Solutions Ltd., while holding that when a substantive order is passed and dictated in open court, the limitation period for filing an appeal shall begin from the date following the pronouncement. The Tribunal observed that the benefit of considering the date of uploading the order as the starting point of limitation can only be availed in situations where no substantive order is passed or dictated on the date of pronouncement.
Background
Two appeals were filed by the appellant, Rajan Rawat, against an order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which directed the Resolution Professional to pay the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) costs to Ashok Kishanlal Sharma and Kishanlal Sharma. The appellant moved applications seeking condonation of a 55-day delay in filing the appeals, which were e-filed on 24.12.2024.
In the delay condonation applications, the appellant contended that the order dated 30.09.2024 was not fully dictated on that day. It was submitted that the court had merely expressed its inclination to allow the applications but did not pronounce the complete operative part or dictate a detailed order. On this basis, the appellant argued that the limitation should be computed from the date the order was uploaded online and not from the date of pronouncement.
Proceedings and Observations
The respondent opposed this argument by referring to the minutes of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting held on 01.10.2024. The said minutes, which were recorded by the RP himself, clearly noted that the NCLT had allowed I.A. No. 5721 of 2023 and I.A. No. 73 of 2024 and directed the Resolution Professional to pay CIRP costs to the respective applicants. The Tribunal noted that these minutes captured the essence of the directions issued by the NCLT on 30.09.2024 and that the appellant’s own record contradicted his claim regarding the absence of a dictated order.
Quoting from the minutes recorded by the RP on 01.10.2024, the Tribunal highlighted that: “The Hon’ble NCLT, while allowing the Applications bearing I.A. No. 5721 of 2023 and I.A. No. 73 of 2024… directed the Resolution Professional to pay the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process Costs to Mr. Ashok Kishanlal Sharma and Mr. Kishanlal Sharma in terms of the provisions of the Code and the Regulations made thereunder.”
The NCLAT held that this note reflected that a substantive and complete order was indeed dictated in open court on 30.09.2024. Therefore, the limitation for filing the appeal began on the following day, i.e., 01.10.2024.
The Tribunal rejected the appellant’s reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate V. Vistara ITC (India) Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 7467-7468/2023] In that case, the Supreme Court had observed that when no substantive order is passed on the date of pronouncement, the date of uploading may be treated as the starting point for calculating limitation. However, the NCLAT clarified that the facts in the present matter were entirely different. It was found that the order was not only passed but also dictated in open court and immediately captured in the RP’s own minutes.
Also Read: Customs Officer Not Empowered To Interfere With FOB Value Of Goods: CESTAT
The Tribunal categorically noted: “The submission in the delay condonation application that no order was dictated in the open court is contrary to the RP’s own minutes recorded on 01.10.2024.”
Verdict
After examining the material on record, including the minutes recorded by the appellant himself, the NCLAT held that the limitation period for filing the appeal commenced on 01.10.2024, the day following the date of pronouncement. Since the appeal was filed after a delay of 55 days, which exceeded the condonable period, the Tribunal found no justification for condoning the delay. Consequently, the delay condonation applications were rejected, and the appeals were also dismissed as barred by limitation.
Appearance
For Appellant: Mr. Dhananjaya Sud, Advocate.
For Respondent: Mr. Prasad Abhyankar and Ms. Aditi Deshpande, Advocates.
Cause Title: Rajan Rawat, RP Future Supply Chain Solutions Ltd. V. Kishanlal Shivramji Sharma
Case No: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 167 of 2025 & I.A. No. 657 of 2025
Coram: Justice Ashok Bhushan [Chairperson] , Mr. Arun Baroka [Member (Technical)], Mr. Barun Mitra [Member (Technical)]
[Read/Download order]
