JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 9.0.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (for brevity ‘AAIFR’) in Appeal No. 21 of 2005 (Annexure P-4). The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the issue of limitation by recording a finding that the appeal has been filed after a period of 45 days as provided by Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The appeal was directed against an order dated 17.12.2003 passed by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for brevity ‘BIFR’). The operative part of the order passed by the AAIFR reads thus:
A perusal of the available records before us indicates that when the appeal was first filed on 9.2.2004 it was done without filing a copy of the impugned order which is required to be invariably filed in terms of our rules/regulations.
2. Subsequently, they have filed an affidavit enclosing a certified copy of the impugned order which is dated 31.5.2004. In an affidavit filed on 29th Jan., 2005, it has been stated that the copy of the impugned order is dated 17.12.2003 and was received on 30.12.2003 and the appeal was filed on 9th Feb., 2004. It is seen, therefore, that the dates are contrary to those in the check list which was filed along with the appeal memo when they first approached this Authority.
If indeed they have received the copy of the order on 30th Dec, 2003 they should have produced the same and filed it with this Authority as the rules prescribe. It could be concluded therefore that the appeal originally filed was defective. When ultimately the full set of papers were filed on 24.5.2004 it was done with an attested copy of the original order which is not permitted. Moreover, if we go by the date on the attested copy which is 31.5.2004, then clearly in terms of Section 25 of SICA the appeal is time barred.
In the result the appeal is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
It is pertinent to read Section 25 of the Act which reads as under:
25. Appeal. – (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Board made under this Act may, within forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority.
Provided that the Appellate Authority may entertain any appeal after the said period of forty-five days but not after sixty days from the date aforesaid if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(2) On receipt of an appeal under Sub-section (1), the Appellate Authority may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, if he so desires, and after making such further inquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order appealed against [or remand the matter to the Board for fresh consideration].
3. The language of Section 25 of the Act shows that the period of 45 days is to commerce from the date of issue of the copy of the order. In order to ascertain the date of issue, this Court sent for original record which has been produced before us in a sealed cover. On the direction of the court, the bench secretary has opened the seal and at page 772, we find that the date of issue of order is 30.12.2003. The order was passed by BIFR on 17.12.2003 and appeal, in fact was filed on 9.2.2004. If the period of limitation is taken from the date of issue as per provisions of Section 25 of the Act i.e. 30.12.2003 then the period of 45 days would not be completed on date of filing of the appeal on 9.2.2004. The appeal would, thus, be within the period of limitation.
4. Keeping in view the aforementioned factual position, the order dated 9.10.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the AAIFR is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the AAIFR for decision afresh on merit. As the matter is lingering on for the last three years and the petitioner has requested for expeditious disposal of the appeal by AAIFR. We direct the AAIFR to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of a receipt of copy of this order.
5. Since all the parties are represented through their counsel before this Court, there may not be any necessity for issuing a fresh notice. The record be resealed and sent to AAIFR immediately. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before AAIFR on 8.4.2008.
6. A copy of the order is given dasti on payment of usual charges.