Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court in an appeal filed by Sagufa Ahmed and Ors challenging the order passed by the NCLAT of dismissing an application for condonation of delay as well as an appeal as time-barred held that law will assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them.
The facts of the case are that the applicants moved an application for winding up before the Guwahati Bench of NCLT, which was dismissed by an order dated 25-10-2019. The applicants applied for the certified copy of the order on 21-11-2019 which was received by them on 19-12-2019 still they chose to file the statutory appeal before NCLAT on 20.07.2020 with an application for condonation of delay which was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that it has no power to condone the delay beyond a period of 45 days.
In the present petition, the contentions raised by the appellants are whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in computing the period of limitation from the date of the order of the NCLT, contrary to Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 and whether the Appellate Tribunal failed to take note of the lockdown as well as the order passed by this Court on 23.03.2020 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, extending the period of limitation for filing any proceeding with effect from 15.03.2020 until further orders.
The court after reading of the sections held that the period of limitation of 45 days prescribed in Section 421(3) would start running only from the date on which a copy of the order of the Tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved. But the appellants, in this case, chose to apply for a certified copy after 27 days of the pronouncement of the order in their presence and even after the period expired on 18-03-2020, they filed appeal only on 20-07-2020.
To get over their failure to file an appeal on or before 18.03.2020, the appellants rely upon the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020. To which the court held that the appellants cannot take refuge under the above order.
“What was extended by the above order of this Court was only 'the period of limitation' and not the period up to which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. The above order passed by this Court was intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were prevented due to the pandemic and the lockdown, from initiating proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by general or special law.”
The court while explaining the meaning of “prescribed period” also relied on the maxim Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt which means that the law will assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them while dismissing the petition as the appellants cannot claim the benefit of the order passed by this Court on 23.03.2020, for enlarging, even the period up to which delay can be condoned.
86540
103860
630
114
59824