Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. vs Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Limitation Act, 1963: s.5 – Delay in filing appeal/any application – s.5 of the Limitation Act provides that any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period of limitation, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court, that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period – Explanation in s.5 of the Limitation Act clarifies that, the fact that the appellant or the applicant may have been misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period, may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this Section.

Limitation Act, 1963: s.5 – Condonation of delay in filing an application or appeal – The condition precedent for condonation of the delay in filing an application or appeal, is the existence of sufficient cause – Whether the explanation furnished for the delay would constitute ‘sufficient cause’ or not would depend upon facts of each case – There cannot be any straight jacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished by the applicant/appellant for the delay in taking steps – Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception, when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party.

Limitation Act, 1963: s.5 – Requirement to file application, not mandatory – s.5 of the Limitation Act does not speak of any application – Although, it is the general practice to make a formal application under s.5, in order to enable the Court or Tribunal to weigh the sufficiency of the cause for the inability of the appellant/applicant to approach the Court/Tribunal within the time prescribed by limitation, there is no bar to exercise by the Court/Tribunal of its discretion to condone delay, in the absence of a formal application – A plain reading of s.5 makes it amply clear that it is not mandatory to file an application in writing before relief can be granted under the said section – Had such an application been mandatory, s.5 of the Limitation Act would have expressly provided so. Limitation Act, 1963: s.14(2) – Exclusion of period for commutation of limitation period – Held: In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the petitioner had been prosecuting, with due diligence, another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance, or of appeal or revision, against the same party, for the same relief, shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature, is unable to entertain it – The conditions for exclusion are that the earlier proceedings should have been for the same relief, the proceedings should have been prosecuted diligently and in good faith and the proceedings should have been prosecuted in a forum which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, was unable to entertain it – Where such proceedings have ended, the outer limit to claim exclusion under s.14 would be the date on which the proceedings ended.

Limitation Act, 1963: s.14 – Applicability to an application under s.7 of the IBC – Held: Legislature has in its wisdom chosen not to make the provisions of the Limitation Act verbatim applicable to proceedings in NCLT/NCLAT, but consciously used the words ‘as far as may be’ – The words ‘as far as may be’ are not meant to be otiose – Those words are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject matter of the legislation and the object which the Legislature has in view – The Courts would not give an interpretation to those words which would frustrate the purposes of making the Limitation Act applicable to proceedings in the NCLT/NCLAT ‘as far as may be’ – In other words, the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings under the IBC in the NCLT/NCLAT – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 –s.238A – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: s.238A – Words ‘as far as may be’ – meaning of – Held: The use of words ‘as far as may be’, occurring in s.238A of the IBC tones down the rigour of the words ‘shall’ in the said Section which is normally considered as mandatory – The expression ‘as far as may be’ is indicative of the fact that all or any of the provisions of the Limitation Act may not apply to proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) or the Appellate authority (NCLAT) if they are patently inconsistent with some provisions of the IBC – At the same time, the words ‘as far as may be’ cannot be construed as a total exclusion of the requirements of the basic principles of s.14 of the Limitation Act, but permits a wider, more liberal, contextual and purposive interpretation by necessary modification, which is in harmony with the principles of the said Section.

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: s.13(4) – The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be, exercising powers under s.14 of the SARFAESI Act, functions as a Civil Court/Executing Court – Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act would, therefore, be deemed to be civil proceedings in a Court – Moreover, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act under s.13(4) are appealable to the DRT under s.18 of the SARFAESI Act – Argument that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act would not qualify for exclusion under s.14 of the Limitation Act, because those proceedings were not conducted in a Civil Court, cannot be sustained.

Limitation Act, 1963: s.14 – Keeping in mind the scope and ambit of proceedings under the IBC before the NCLT/NCLAT, the expression ‘Court’ in s.14(2) would be deemed to be any forum for a civil proceeding including any Tribunal or any forum under the SARFAESI Act – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Limitation Act, 1963: s.5 and s.14 – s.5 and s.14 of the Limitation Act are not mutually exclusive – Even in a case where s.14 does not strictly apply, the principles of s.14 can be invoked to grant relief to an applicant under s.5 of the Limitation Act by purposively construing ‘sufficient cause’ – It is well settled that omission to refer to the correct section of a statute does not vitiate an order – Delay can be condoned irrespective of whether there is any formal application, if there are sufficient materials on record disclosing sufficient cause for the delay – NCLAT rightly refused to stay the proceedings before the NCLT – The judgment and order of the NCLT does not warrant interference.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. As stated in its Object and Reasons, the objective of the IBC is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner, for maximization of the value of the assets of such persons, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and to balance the interest of all the stakeholders. An effective legal framework for timely resolution of insolvency and bankruptcy would support development of credit markets and encourage entrepreneurship. It would also ease business, and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development. The IBC seeks to designate the NCLT and DRT as the Adjudicating Authorities for resolution of insolvency, liquidation and bankruptcy. [Para 35][829-A-C]

2.1 Section 6 of the IBC provides that, when any corporate debtor commits a default, a financial creditor, an operational creditor or the corporate debtor itself may initiate corporate insolvency resolution process in respect of such corporate debtor, in such manner as provided in Chapter II of the IBC. A financial creditor may either by itself or jointly with other financial creditors, as may be notified by the Government, file an application for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor before the Adjudicating Authority, when a default has occurred. The trigger point for an application under Section 7 of the IBC is the occurrence of a default. [Paras 36, 38][829-C-D; 831-F-G

Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank and Another (2018) 1 SCC 407 : [2017] 8 SCR 33 – relied on.

2.2 The Limitation Act 1963, has been enacted to consolidate and amend the law of limitation of suits and other proceedings and for purposes connected therewith. The Limitation Act applies to “suits and other proceedings and for purposes connected therewith” as stated in its preamble. The expression “other proceedings” are necessarily proceedings arising out of and/or related to suits. Various statutes have, however, adopted the provisions of the Limitation Act, by incorporation or reference, either in its entirety or to a limited extent. For example, Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 provided that all the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 would apply to arbitrations as they applied to proceedings in Court. Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall, as far as may be, apply to proceedings or appeals before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. [Paras 45, 47][835-E-F; 836-A-B]

K. Venkateswara Rao And Anr. v. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi & Ors. AIR 1969 SC 872 : [1969] SCR 679; Nityananda M. Joshi and Others v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India andothers (1969) 2 SCC

199:[1970] 1 SCR 396 – referred to.

2.3 The insolvency Committee of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, in a report published in March 2018, stated that the intent of the IBC could not have been to give a new lease of life to debts which were already time barred. Thereafter Section 238A was incorporated in the IBC by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 26 of 2018), with effect from 6th June 2018. Section 238A reads that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall, as far as may be, apply to proceedings or appeals inter alia before the NCLT/NCLAT. Section 238 gives overriding effect to the IBC, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, for the time being in force, or any instrument having effect, by virtue of any such law. [Paras 48, 49, 50][836-C-F]

3.1 There is no specific period of limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1963 for an application under the IBC before the NCLT. An application for which no period of limitation is provided anywhere else in the Schedule, is governed by Article

137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Under Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the period of limitation prescribed for such an application is three years from the date of accrual of the right to apply. [Para 51][836-G]

3.2 There can be no dispute with the proposition that the period of limitation for making an application under Section 7 or

9 of the IBC is three years from the date of accrual of the right to sue, that is, the date of default. [Para 52][836-H] Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. and Anr. (2019) 10 SCC 572: [2019] 13 SCR 224 – relied on.

3.3 Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides that any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period of limitation, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court, that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. The explanation in Section 5 of the Limitation Act clarifies that, the fact that the appellant or the applicant may have been misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period, may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this Section. [Para 53] [837-B-D]

B.K. Educational Services Private Limited v. Parag Gupta and Associates (2019) 11 SCC 633 : [2018] 12 SCR 794 – relied on.

Radha Export (India) Private Limited v. K.P. Jayaram and Anr. (2020) 10 SCC 538; Babulal Vardharji Gurjar v. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. and another (2020) 15 SCC 1 – referred to.

4.1 Section 238A of the IBC provides that the provisions of the Limitation Act shall, as far as may be, apply to proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority(NCLT) and the NCLAT. The NCLT/NCLAT has the discretion to entertain an application/appeal after the prescribed period of limitation. The condition precedent for exercise of such discretion is the existence of sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal and/or the application within the period prescribed by limitation. [Paras 58, 59] [838-D-E]

Ramlal Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 : [1962] SCR 762; Madras High Court in Krishna v. Chattappan 1890 ILR Mad 269; Shakuntla Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumar AIR 1969 SC

575 : [1969] SCR1006; State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality and Others (1972)

1 SCC 366: [1972] 2 SCR 874 – relied on.

4.2 The condition precedent for condonation of the delay in filing an application or appeal, is the existence of sufficient cause. Whether the explanation furnished for the delay would constitute ‘sufficient cause’ or not would dependent upon facts of each case. There cannot be any straight jacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished by the applicant/appellant for the delay in taking steps. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception, when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. [Para 61][839-A-B]

4.3 It is true that a valuable right may accrue to the other party by the law of limitation, which should not lightly be defeated by condoning delay in a routine manner. At the same time, when stakes are high, the explanation should not be rejected by taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter, causing thereby irreparable loss and injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The courts are required to strike a balance between the legitimate rights and interests of the respective parties. [Para 62][839-A-B]

4.4 Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not speak of any application. The Section enables the Court to admit an application or appeal if the applicant or the appellant, as the case may be, satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application and/or preferring the appeal, within the time prescribed. Although, it is the general practice to make a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the Court or Tribunal to weigh the sufficiency of the cause for the inability of the appellant/applicant to approach the Court/Tribunal within the time prescribed by limitation, there is no bar to exercise by the Court/Tribunal of its discretion to condone delay, in the absence of a formal application. [Para 63][839-D-F]

5.1 Section 238A of the IBC makes the provisions of the Limitation Act, as far as may be, applicable to proceedings before the NCLT and the NCLAT. The IBC does not exclude the application of Section 6 or 14 or 18 or any other provision of the Limitation Act to proceedings under the IBC in the NCLT/NCLAT. All the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings in the NCLT/NCLAT, to the extent feasible. There is no reason why Section 14 or 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should not apply to proceeding under Section 7 or Section

9 of the IBC. [Paras 67, 68][840-G-H; 841-A]

5.2 Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act provides that in computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the petitioner had been prosecuting, with due diligence, another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance, or of appeal or revision, against the same party, for the same relief, shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature, is unable to entertain it. The conditions for exclusion are that the earlier proceedings should have been for the same relief, the proceedings should have been prosecuted diligently and in good faith and the proceedings should have been prosecuted in a forum which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, was unable to entertain it. [Para 70][841-D-E]

State of Goa v. Western Builders (2006) 6 SCC 239: [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 288; Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 169 : [2008] 5 SCR 1108; Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board and Ors. v. Mohanlal & Co. (2016) 14 SCC 199 – relied on. Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 619 – referred to.

6.1 There can be little doubt that Section 14 applies to an application under Section 7 of the IBC. The IBC does not exclude the operation of Section 14 of the IBC. The question is whether prior proceedings under the SARFAESI Act do not qualify for the exclusion of time under Section 14, inasmuch as they are not civil proceedings in a Court. [Para 75][845-E-F]

6.2 Even if it were to be held that the benefit of Section 14 would be available to an applicant under IBC, for proceedings initiated bona fide and prosecuted with due diligence under the SARFAESI Act, another question raised in this appeal is, whether exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, would only be available if the proceedings which could not be entertained for defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of a like nature, had ended, in view of the Explanation at the end of Section 14, which says that for the purposes of the said Section, the day on which the earlier proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted for exclusion of time. [Para 76][845-G-H; 846-A]

6.3 Section 14 of the Limitation Act is to be read as a whole. A conjoint and careful reading of Sub-Sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 14 makes it clear that an applicant who has prosecuted another civil proceeding with due diligence, before a forum which is unable to entertain the same on account of defect of jurisdiction or any other cause of like nature, is entitled to exclusion of the time during which the applicant had been prosecuting such proceeding, in computing the period of limitation. The substantive provisions of Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 14 do not say that Section 14 can only be invoked on termination of the earlier proceedings, prosecuted in good faith. [Para 77] [846-B-D]

Bihta Co-operative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd. and Anr. v. Bank of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1967 SC 389: 1967 SCR 848; Sundaram Pillai and Others v. V.R. Pattabiraman and Others (1985) 1 SCC 591 : [1985] 2 SCR 643 – referred to.

7.1 Explanation (a) cannot be construed in a narrow pedantic manner to mean that Section 14 can never be invoked until and unless the earlier proceedings have actually been terminated for want of jurisdiction or other cause of such nature. Explanation (a), which is clarificatory, only restricts the period of exclusion to the period between the date of initiation and the date of termination. An applicant cannot claim any further exclusion. [Para 81][847-E]

7.2 Section 14 excludes the time spent in proceeding in a wrong forum, which is unable to entertain the proceedings for want of jurisdiction, or other such cause. Where such proceedings have ended, the outer limit to claim exclusion under Section 14 would be the date on which the proceedings ended. In the instant case, the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act may not have formally been terminated. The proceedings have however been stayed by the High Court by an interim order, on the prima facie satisfaction that the proceedings initiated by the financial creditor, which is a cooperative bank, was without jurisdiction. The writ petition filed by the Corporate Debtor was not disposed of even after almost four years. The carriage of proceedings was with the Corporate Debtor. The interim order was still in force, when proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC were initiated, as a result of which the Financial Creditor was unable to proceed further under the SARFAESI Act. [Paras 84, 85][848-C-E]

7.3 In the instant case, even if it is assumed that the right to sue accrued on 31.3.2013 when the account of Corporate Debtor was declared NPA, the financial creditor initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act on 18th January 2014, that is the date on which notice under Section 13(2) was issued, proceeded with the same, and even took possession of the assets, until the entire proceedings were stayed by the High Court by its order dated 24th July 2017. The proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC were initiated on 10th July 2018. [Para 86][848-F]

7.4 Since the proceedings in the High Court were still pending on the date of filing of the application under Section 7 of the IBC in the NCLT, the entire period after the initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act could be excluded. If the period from the date of institution of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act till the date of filing of the application under Section 7 of the IBC in the NCLT is excluded, the application in the NCLT is well within the limitation of three years. Even if the period between the date of the notice under Section 13(2) and date of the interim order of the High Court staying the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, on the prima facie ground of want of jurisdiction is excluded, the proceedings under Section

7 of IBC are still within limitation of three years. [Para 87] [848-G-H; 849-A-B]

7.5 An Adjudicating Authority under the IBC is not a substitute forum for a collection of debt in the sense it cannot reopen debts which are barred by law, or debts, recovery whereof have become time barred. The Adjudicating Authority does not resolve disputes, in the manner of suits, arbitrations and similar proceedings. However, the ultimate object of an application under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC is the realization of a ‘debt’ by invocation of the Insolvency Resolution Process. In any case, since the cause of action for initiation of an application, whether under Section 7 or under Section 9 of the IBC, is default on the part of the Corporate Debtor, and the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963, as far as may be, have been applied to proceedings under the IBC, there is no reason why Section 14 or 18 of the Limitation Act would not apply for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation. [Para 88][849-B-D]

8.1 Unlike statutes like the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, which make the provisions of the Limitation Act, as they apply to Court proceedings, also applicable to arbitration proceedings, Section 238A of the IBC makes the Limitation Act applicable to proceedings in NCLT/NCLAT ‘as far as may be’ and/or in other words, to the extent they may be applied. [Para 90][849-F-G]

8.2 Legislature has in its wisdom chosen not to make the provisions of the Limitation Act verbatim applicable to proceedings in NCLT/NCLAT, but consciously used the words ‘as far as may be’. The words ‘as far as may be’ are not meant to be otiose. Those words are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject matter of the legislation and the object which the Legislature has in view. The Courts would not give an interpretation to those words which would frustrate the purposes of making the Limitation Act applicable to proceedings in the NCLT/NCLAT ‘as far as may be’. In other words, the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply mutatis mutandis to proceedings under the IBC in the NCLT/NCLAT. [Paras 91, 92][849-H; 850-A-C]

New India Sugar Mill Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar AIR 1963 SC 1207 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 459; Busching Schmitz Private Ltd. v. P.T. Menghani AIR 1977 SC 1569 : [1977] 3 SCR 312 – relied on.

8.3 The Court should adopt an object oriented approach keeping in mind the principle that legislative futility is to be ruled out so long as interpretative possibility permits. The object oriented approach cannot be carried to the extent of doing violence to the plain language used, by rewriting the section or substituting words in place of the actual words used by Legislature. [Para 93][850-D]

9.1 The use of words ‘as far as may be’, occurring in Section 238A of the IBC tones down the rigour of the words ‘shall’ in the aforesaid Section which is normally considered as mandatory. The expression ‘as far as may be’ is indicative of the fact that all or any of the provisions of the Limitation Act may not apply to proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) or the Appellate authority (NCLAT) if they are patently inconsistent with some provisions of the IBC. At the same time, the words ‘as far as may be’ cannot be construed as a total exclusion of the requirements of the basic principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, but permits a wider, more liberal, contextual and purposive interpretation by necessary modification, which is in harmony with the principles of the said Section. [Para 94][850-E-G]

9.2 If, in the context of proceedings under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC, Section 14 were to be interpreted with rigid and pedantic adherence to its literal meaning, to hold that only civil proceedings in Court would enjoy exclusion, the result would be that an applicant would not even be entitled to exclusion of the period of time spent in bona fide invoking and diligently pursuing an earlier application under the same provision of IBC, for the same relief, before an Adjudicating Authority, lacking territorial jurisdiction This could not possibly have been the legislative intent. [Para 95][850-G-H; 851-A-B]

S.A.L. Narayan Rao and Anr. v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and Anr. AIR 1965 SC 1818 :[1966] SCR 190 –

followed.

9.3 The proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are undoubtedly civil proceedings. [Para 96][851-B]

9.4 There is no rationale for the view that the proceedings initiated by a secured creditor against a borrower under the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of its secured assets, were intended to be excluded from the category of civil proceedings. [Para 97][851-H; 852-A]

United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 110 : [2010] 9 SCR 1 – referred to.

9.5 Even though Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act enables a secured creditor to enforce security interest created in its favour, without the intervention of the Court or Tribunal, the SARFAESI Act does not exclude the intervention of Courts and/or Tribunals altogether. [Para 98][852-D-E]

10.1 The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be, exercising powers under Section

14 of the SARFAESI Act, functions as a Civil Court/Executing Court. Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act would, therefore, be deemed to be civil proceedings in a Court. Moreover, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act under Section 13(4) are appealable to the DRT under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. Argument that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act would not qualify for exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, because those proceedings were not conducted in a Civil Court, cannot be sustained. [Para 99][857-C-D]

10.2 Another civil proceeding whether in a Court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the party, for the same relief, would have to be construed to include any civil Proceeding in a forum, whether of first instance, or appellate, or revisional, against the same party for similar relief, more so, having regard to the language and tenor of Section 238A of the Limitation Act which applies the provisions of the Limitation Act “as far as may be”, to proceedings in the NCLT/NCLAT. [Para 100][857-E]

10.3 Keeping in mind the scope and ambit of proceedings under the IBC before the NCLT/NCLAT, the expression ‘Court’ in Section 14(2) would be deemed to be any forum for a civil proceeding including any Tribunal or any forum under the SARFAESI Act. [Para 101][857-F]

10.4 In any case, Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act are not mutually exclusive. Even in a case where Section 14 does not strictly apply, the principles of Section 14 can be invoked to grant relief to an applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by purposively construing ‘sufficient cause’. It is well settled that omission to refer to the correct section of a statute does not vitiate an order. At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that delay can be condoned irrespective of whether there is any formal application, if there are sufficient materials on record disclosing sufficient cause for the delay. [Para 102][857-G-H; 858-A]

10.5 The NCLAT rightly refused to stay the proceedings before the NCLT. The judgment and order of the NCLT does not warrant interference. [Para 103][858-A]

Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2018) 1 SCC 353 : [2017]

10 SCR 1006; M/s. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. M/s. Hotel Poonja International Private Limited 2020 SCC Online NCLAT 920 –

referred to.