Conduct Of Litigant Can't Be Considered Bonafide When Fresh Order Is Challenged In Re-Filed Appeal After Curing Defects: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the conduct of the litigant cannot be considered bona fide when an appeal, re-filed after rectification of defects, challenges a new order different from the one challenged in the original appeal. Therefore, the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be granted to exclude the time spent in prosecuting the earlier proceedings. The Appellant has filed this Interlocutory Application seeking condonation of a 117 day delay in filing the Appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Appellant submitted that the Appellant is entitled for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since the earlier Appeal, which was being pursued by the Appellant from 02.08.2024 to 26.11.2024 was due to misjoinder of cause of action, hence, the benefit of Section 14 be extended. In reply, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant is not entitled for benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Appellant has not been bonafide pursuing the earlier Appeal, which Appeal was filed challenging the orders dated 29.07.2024 and 30.07.2024. The Tribunal observed that limitation for filing Appeal commences from the date when order is pronounced. The order dated 02.08.2024 was delivered on 02.08.2024, which is mentioned in the impugned order itself. The limitation for filing the Appeal commenced on 02.08.2024 and the limitation of 30 days shall come to an end on 01.09.2024 and 15 days' period shall also come to an end on 16.09.2024. It noted that the Appellant relied on section 14 of the Limitation Act and sought a period from 02.08.2024 to 26.11.2024 to be excluded on account of fresh liberty being given to file the appeal. However, this argument was rejected on the ground that to claim benefit under this provision, earlier proceedings must have been prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence. In the present case, both elements are missing as the conduct of the Appellant was not bonafide due to introduction of new challenge while refiling the Appeal after rectifying the defects pointed out by the Registry. It held that “Neither there was any bonafide, nor it can be said that Appellant acted diligently. According to the prayers made in the application itself, the delay is said to be of 117 days and present is a case where the Appellant is clearly not entitled for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. “ The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Tata Steel held that the NCLAT can condone the delay upto 15 days beyond the initial period of 30 days. Once the total period of 45 days has expired, the NCLAT loses its authority to entertain any appeal regardless of the reason for delay. Accordingly, the present application was dismissed. Case Title:Unified Titanium Common Association Through Authorized Representative Versus Earth Iconic Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Through Liquidator Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 250 of 2025 & I.A. No. 959 of 2025 Judgment Date: 08/07/2025 For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Ms. Shubhangini Yadav, Mr. Shashank Raghav and Mr. Ankur Saraswat, Advocates For Respondent : Ms. Honey Satpal and Mr. Kanishk Kullar, Advocates. Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Conduct Of Litigant Can't Be Considered Bonafide When Fresh Order Is Challenged In Re-Filed Appeal After Curing Defects: NCLAT

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Conduct Of Litigant Can't Be Considered Bonafide When Fresh Order Is Challenged In Re-Filed Appeal After Curing Defects: NCLAT

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers