Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"4. As to the second part of clause (b) of the proviso, the true scope and effect thereof was considered by this court in Raja Harish Chandra's case. It was there observed that a literal and mechanical construction of the words "six months from the date of the Collector's award" occurring in the second part of clause (b) of the proviso would not be appropriate and "the knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice, the expression... used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively". Admittedly the award was never communicated to the respondents. Therefore the question before us boils down to this. When did the respondents know the award either actually or constructively? Learned counsel for the appellant has placed very strong reliance on the petition which the respondents made for interim payment of compensation on December 24, 1954. He has pointed out that the learned Subordinate Judge relied on this petition as showing the respondents' date of knowledge and there are no reasons why we should take a different view. It seems clear, to us that the ratio of the decision in Raja Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1071 of 2023 with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 588 of 2023 Harish Chandra case (supra) is that the party affected by the award must know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six months will run from the date of that knowledge. Now knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made. The knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award. These contents may be known either actually or constructively. If the award is communicated to a party under Section 12(2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents of the award whether he reads it or not. Similarly when a party is present in court either personally or through his representative when the award is made by the Collector, it must be presumed that he knows the contents of the award. Having regard to the scheme of the Act we think that knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of the essential contents of the award. Looked at from that point of view, we do not think that it can be inferred from the petition dated December 24, 1954 that the respondents had knowledge of the award. One of the respondents gave evidence before the learned Subordinate Judge and she said:

21. It is noticeable from both the above judgments that it was held in the statutory scheme of Land Acquisition Act that right to make a reference under Section 18 shall arise from knowledge of the award. It was also held that the knowledge of award may be actually or constructively. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh" (supra) that if the award was pronounced in the presence of the party whose right is affected by it, it can be said to be made when pronounced. It was held that the knowledge of the party affected by the award may be either actual or constructive. In "State of Punjab" (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award. These Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1071 of 2023 with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 588 of 2023 contents may be known either actually or constructively. When a party affected by the award is present at the time when pronouncement of the award knowledge of the contents of the award has to be read constructively to the party, which is the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case.

30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment in paragraph 14 has also held that the expression "the date of that order", therefore, mean and must be construed as meaning the date of communication or knowledge, actual or constructive, of the order sought to be reviewed. In paragraph 14 of the judgment, following was held:-

"14. How can a person concerned or a person aggrieved be expected to exercise the right of review conferred by the provision unless the order is communicated to or is Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1071 of 2023 with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 588 of 2023 known to him either actually or constructively? The words "the date of that order", therefore, mean and must be construed as meaning the date of communication or knowledge, actual or constructive, of the order sought to be reviewed."

31. In the present case, orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority were pronounced in the open Court in the presence of the Counsel for the Appellant. In any view of the matter, they cannot contend that they do not have even constructive knowledge of the order on the said date. Knowledge of the order has to be actual or constructive knowledge and when the orders are pronounced, it can very well be said that the constructive knowledge has to be imputed to the contents of the order to an aggrieved party. In event the submission of the Appellant is accepted that unless the contents of the order are known to an aggrieved party, he cannot exercise the right of appeal and period of limitation for filing an Appeal shall not commence till he is aware of the contents of the order, it may lead to uncertainty and delay in resolution process which are not in accordance with the scheme of the IBC. IBC is a statute which provide for timely resolution/ liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. Timeline for various acts are prescribed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "V. Nagarajan" (supra) has held that Section 61 has to be interpreted keeping in view the purpose and object of the IBC and Section 61 has to be put to interpretation in the above manner. We, thus, are of the view that the submission of the Appellant that the period of limitation shall commence for filing the Appeal when aggrieved party/ Appellant is aware of the contents of the order cannot be accepted.