- (1.) Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri S.D.Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8. Sri Madhur Prakash, learned counsel appears for all other respondents. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 27.9.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR), New Dew Delhi whereby the appeal of the petitioners against the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) dated 25.10.2011 has been dismissed as barred by time. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was reported to be beyond time by more than 168 days.
(2.) The appeal to the AAIFR lies under Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SICA'). It provides that the appeal to the AAIFR can be preferred within forty-five days from the date the copy of the order is issued to the person aggrieved. It further lays down that the AAIFR may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the above period of forty-five days but not after sixty days, if it is satisfied that the person aggrieved/ appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. In other words, the limitation for filing the appeal is only forty-five days and the AAIFR can condone the delay of another fifteen days, if it is satisfied that the appellant could not file it for sufficient reasons but it has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal which is preferred after sixty days from the date on which the copy of the order is issued to the person aggrieved or to condone the delay thereof. SICA is a central enactment of a special nature and is a complete code in itself. It does not provide for application of Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 25 of the SICA is directly governed by the provisions of the SICA itself and not by any other law unless shown to be expressly applicable. The AAIFR by the impugned order has held that in view of the language used in Section 25 of the SICA the provisions of Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are not applicable and the period which the appellants (petitioners) may have bonafidely spent in pursuing an alternative remedy before any other court is not liable to be excluded for computing the limitation of the appeal.
(3.) The petitioners allege that earlier the order of the BIFR dated 25.10.2011 was challenged by them in a writ petition filed on 29.11.2011. The said writ petition was dismissed on 11.4.2012 on the ground of alternative remedy holding that the petitioners have a statutory right of appeal before the AAIFR. Therefore, the period spent in the High Court in pursuing the aforesaid writ petition is liable to be excluded by extending the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Sri Ashish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, as the SICA does not expressly excludes the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, the petitioners are entitle to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and for exclusion of the period spend by them in pursuing the writ petition before the High Court for the purpose of computing the limitation for filing the appeal.;