The Supreme Court observed that both a free certified copy, as well as a certified copy made on an application, are treated as certified copy for purposes of rule 50 NCLT Rules.

The bench of Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra observed, “both the certified copy which is provided free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made on an application in that behalf are treated as certified copies for the purposes of Rule 50”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Appellant and Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The State Bank of India filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the respondent, but the National Company Law Tribunal dismissed it due to maintainability issues. An appeal with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal three days beyond the 30-day limit and sought condonation of the delay. NCLAT members issued conflicting opinions after which a judicial member was consulted which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.

The Court noted that Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules governs the furnishing of certified copies. Rule 50 indicates that the Registry shall send a certified copy of the final order which has been passed to the parties concerned free of cost.

“…certified copies may be made available against the payment of costs in terms of the Schedule of Fees, in other cases. Rule 50 provides for a certified copy being provided free of cost and that a certified copy may be made available against the payment of costs, as indicated in the Schedule of Fees.”, the Court added.

The Court mentioned the decision in V Nagarajan Vs SKS Ispat and Power Limited & Ors and where according to the Court it was observed, “Both the certified copy which is made available free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on the payment of costs, are treated as certified copies for the purpose of Rule 50. A litigant who does not apply for a certified copy cannot then fall back and claim that he was awaiting the grant of a free copy to obviate the bar of limitation.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the NCLAT.

Cause Title: State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Limited (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 774)

Appearance:

Appellant: SG Tushar Mehta, Advocates Madhav Kanoria, Surabhi Khattar, Neha Shivhare and Sriharsh Raj

Respondent: Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Advocates Anirban Bhattacharya, Rajeev Chowdhary, Priyanka Bhatt and Pranjit Bhattacharya

Click here to read/download Judgment