If a judgment is pronounced in open Court, the period of limitation starts running from that very day. If an application for certified copy is filed, the period during which the certified copy was under preparation has to be excluded as per Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act

(i) The incident which triggers limitation to commence is the date of pronouncement of the Order and in case of non-pronouncement of the Order when the hearing concludes, the date on which the Order is pronounced or uploaded on the website.

(ii) However, where the judgment was pronounced in open Court, the period of limitation starts running from that very day. The appellant is however entitled to seek relief under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act for excluding the period during which the certified copy was under preparation on an application preferred by that party.

(iii) On facts, in the absence of any certified copy having been applied by the appellant of the impugned orders dated 20th July 2023 passed by the NCLT on which it was admittedly pronounced, with Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules mandating filing of the appeal along with the certified copy. The appeals as preferred by the appellant need to be dismissed as they were filed beyond 30 days and no steps have been taken by the appellant to seek certified copy of the order.

(iv) That apart, the second appeal, on this score alone is to be dismissed as there is no question of moving an application for condonation of delay when no application for obtaining a certified copy of the order has been filed. Exemption from filing of certified copy, as has been referred to above, cannot be claimed as a matter of right in terms of the statutory requirements of the Rules. As regards the first appeal, which was accompanied with the certified copy supplied free by NCLT the same also being beyond the period of limitation and the time of ten days as sought to be exempted for the preparation and making available the certified copy cannot be credited to the benefit of the appellant as the period of limitation commences from the date of pronouncement of the order and the benefit of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act is available only on an application for grant of certified copy of the Order having been filed till the date of preparation of the said certified copy. Since no such steps have been taken by the appellant for applying the certified copy, the appeal was beyond limitation.

(v) The application of condonation of delay in the first appeal, disclosing no reasons whatsoever in filing the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The satisfaction has to be of the Appellate Tribunal and that too on justifiable grounds, which, as is apparent, from the perusal of the application there is none pleaded which can be said to be projecting sufficient cause for not approaching the Appellate Tribunal within the time stipulated under Section 61(2) of the IBC.