The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Spot Exchange Ltd. Vs. Anil Kohli, Resolution Professional of Dunar Foods Limited has held that the NCLAT has no power to condone the delay (of more than 30 + 15 days) in an appeal made to it beyond the prescribed limit provided under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
In the instant case titled National Spot Exchange Limited ("NSEL") V Mr Anil Kohli, Resolution Professional For Dunar Foods Limited the question before the Supreme Court was:Whether the NCLAT could have condoned the delay beyond the statutory limitation period of 30 (thirty) plus 15 (fifteen) days and whether, in the alternative, the Hon'ble Supreme Court could exercise its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to condone such delay.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a situation where the statute itself states that a forum cannot condone delay beyond a certain period of time or can condone a delay up to a certain number of days but not more, the same would fall under the purview of legislation and, thus, would not be condonable even under the provisions of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution. Clear provisions contradictory to the legislature's intent would not exist if the legislature intended to allow for the condonation of delay to any extent.
The Court remarked that the law (IBC) as it stands does not carve out an exception for any legitimate grounds that would prevent a party from submitting an appeal within the condonable period, and hence the Courts must be bound by it. The Court cannot ignore the Parliamentary mandate on the basis of hardship.
The court categorically held that:
“The Court unequivocally held that the provisions of the IBC, being a special statute, would prevail over the provisions of the Limitation Act, which is a general statute. Reliance was placed on the decision in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. wherein, in a similar set of facts, it was held that the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 being of special nature, the period of limitation specified thereunder (under section 34) would prevail over the general limitation period of appeal under section 5 of the Limitation Act”.
The Supreme Court held that, in light of established legal principles, the NCLAT did not make an error in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The Court also noted that, in the instant case, the application for a certified copy of the NCLT's order was filed after 34 (thirty-four) days had passed (i.e., after the original 30 (thirty) day limitation period had passed).