Vivek Parti vs Uttrakhand Power Corporation Limited & Ors.

Court: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Case type: IA
Decided on: 25-02-2026

<div> NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1475 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Vivek Parti, RP for Trading Engineers International Ltd. …Appellant Versus Uttrakhand Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Karan Gandhi, Mr. Shikhar Tiwari, Ms. Vidhika Kapoor, Ms. Riya Jain, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Sonam Anand, Mr. Yakesh Anand, Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advocates for R-1. O R D E R Ashok Bhushan, J. This is an application filed by the Appellant praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal and condonation of delay application need to be noted first. (i) The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi Bench, Court – II passed an order on 11.06.2025 in I.A. No. 4942 of 2024 filed by the Appellant. On the date when order was passed both counsel for the Applicant as well as Applicant in person were present. Cont’d…/ 2 (ii) Appellant also applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 28.07.2025. The certified copy was ready on 08.08.2025 which was delivered on 12.08.2025. (iii) Appellant challenging order e-filed this appeal on 28.08.2025. 2. In the application for condonation for delay notices were issued and time was allowed to file reply. Reply has been filed by the Respondent No.1 to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the Appellant. In the reply, the Respondent has come up with the case that order dated 11.06.2025 was pronounced by the Tribunal in open court in presence of the Appellant and his counsel. The present appeal has been filed on 28.08.2025, which is much beyond period of limitation. The outer limit of condonable period being 15 days, the appeal, having been filed with delay of 49 days beyond statutory period, is barred by time and deserves to be rejected. 3. We have heard Shri Karan Gandhi, learned counsel for the Appellant/Applicant and Shri Sonam Anand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the case was listed in the cause list not for pronouncement of order. Although the order was passed in the open court but the order attained finality only on its uploading on 04.07.2025 on the NCLT portal. The impugned order having been uploaded on the NCLT portal on 04.07.2025, the limitation shall begin from the said date and Applicant having been applied for certified copy of the order on 28.07.2025, time from 28.07.2025 till 08.08.2025 when copy was I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 3 prepared need to be excluded and after excluding the said period, the delay in filing the appeal is only 14 days, which is within the condonable period. It is submitted that in the present case limitation shall commence from 04.07.2025 when the order was uploaded. It is submitted that the th Appellant convened 39 meeting of the CoC to place the matter for discussion. It is submitted that delay in filing the appeal being within condonable period and there being sufficient cause, the said delay be condoned. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant submits that in the present case the order was pronounced on 11.06.2025 itself by the Court and when the order was pronounced both Appellant and his counsel were present. Limitation for filing the appeal shall commence from date of pronouncement by excluding 11.06.2025, Appeal having been filed on 28.08.2025, there is delay of 49 days. In the present case, the Appellant’s submission that limitation for filing the appeal shall commence w.e.f. 04.07.2025 when the order was uploaded on the portal is incorrect. Present is the case where order was pronounced in the open court after hearing the parties. Appellant’s submission of shifting the period of limitation to subsequent event is wholly impermissible. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant in support of his submission has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “A Rajendra vs. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors., (2025) 6 SCC 618”, “Sanket I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 4 Kumar Agarwal & Anr. vs. APG Logistics Private Limited, (2024) 2 SCC 545”, “Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1663” and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1042. Learned counsel for the Respondent has also placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat& Power Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 959”, “A Rajendra vs. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 721”, “Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1042” , “Directorate of Enforcement vs. Anil Kumar Mittal, Resolution Professional of Varutha Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1820” and “Haryana State Industrial & Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Benlon India Ltd., Civil Appeal No.9380-81/2022” . 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. We need to first notice the reasons given by the Appellant/ Applicant for condonation of delay. In the application in Para F (ii), it is pleaded that the delay has primarily occurred on account of presentation of the matter before the CoC of the Corporate Debtor. In the application, which has been filed for condonation of delay, Appellant has not pleaded that order was not pronounced on 11.06.2025. However, in the Rejoinder Affidavit, it is pleaded that order dated 11.06.2025 was uploaded on 04.07.2025. I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 5 9. The only issued which need to be considered and decided in the present application is as to whether limitation for filing the appeal against order dated 11.06.2025 shall commence on pronouncement of the order on 11.06.2025 or w.e.f. 04.07.2025 when the order was uploaded. The related question to above is, as to whether the order dated 11.06.2025 was pronounced on 11.06.2025 or not. 10. We need to first notice the factual pleadings of the parties and materials with regard to order dated 11.06.2025. In the application which was filed by the Appellant praying for condonation of delay in Para F(ii), Appellant pleaded that the delay has primarily occurred on account of presentation of the matter before the CoC of the Corporate Debtor. As observed above, the Appellant has not taken any case in the application that limitation shall not commence from date of pronouncement i.e. 11.06.2025 rather it will commence from 04.07.2025 when order was uploaded. In the th application, the Applicant/ Appellant has referred to the discussion in 39 CoC meeting and relevant portion of the discussion is extracted in the said para. With regard to hearing held on 11.06.2025 following is the extract of discussion included in Para F(ii): “The Chairman apprised the members of the CoC about the hearing held on 11.06.2025 before the Hon'ble NCLT, where the RP was represented through legal counsel. The first matter taken up was I.A. No. 2806 of 2025 and I.A. No. 4942 of 2024, relating to disconnection and restoration of electricity supply by UPCL. It was submitted before the Hon'ble Bench that I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 6 the CD was making monthly payments towards electricity charges prior to the disconnection, although with some delays, and that UPCL had continued to raise composite bills including Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) and arrears for both pre-CIRP and CIRP periods, without bifurcation. All dues till July 2024 had been cleared by the RP. However, UPCL had insisted that electricity would only be restored upon payment of the full outstanding dues, including LPS and pre-CIRP arrears. The RP argued that electricity was essential to preserve the CD as a going concern and that a local party interested in taking Unit-II on lease had agreed to bear future electricity consumption costs. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Bench held that under Section 14 of the IBC, dues for the CIRP period were payable and directed that the CD shall pay the CIRP-period dues, including applicable delay charges, and that UPCL must restore the electricity supply immediately. The Bench further directed that future dues be paid on time. …..” [Emphasis supplied by us] 11. The above discussion before the CoC, which is extracted and relied by the Appellant, itself indicate that in the hearing held on 11.06.2025 the Resolution Professional was represented through counsel and arguments made before the Bench has also been extracted. The discussion further noticed that “ After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Bench held that under Section 14 of the IBC, dues for the CIRP period were payable and directed that the CD shall pay the CIRP-period dues, including applicable delay I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 7 charges, and that UPCL must restore the electricity supply immediately. The Bench further directed that future dues be paid on time.”. The statement made in the rejoinder by the Appellant makes evidently clear that order was passed in the open court. In Para 6 of the rejoinder affidavit following has been pleaded by the Appellant: “That the order passed by the Adjudicating authority was pronounced in open court but attained finality only upon its uploading on 04.07.2025 on the NCLT portal. Proof of date of uploading of order 04.07.2025 being uploaded as so on 11.06.2025 is annexed as ANNEXURE 2” 12. The factual position is thus clear that order dated 11.06.2025 was pronounced in the open court which is admitted fact by the Appellant also. Appellant in above para 6 has stated that the order attained finality only upon its uploading on 04.07.2025. The above statement made is wholly incorrect, the period of limitation shall start on the date when order is pronounced. We need to notice judgment which has been relied by the Appellant. Learned counsel for the Appellant has relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A Rajendra vs. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors. (Supra). Reliance has been placed on Paras 24, 25 and 26 of the judgment, which are as follows: “24. In Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd., this Court had an occasion to deal with the case where an application was heard by NCLT on 17-5-2023 but no order was pronounced. The order I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 8 came to be uploaded by the Registry on 30-4-2023 directly carrying the date of the order as 17-5-2023. The appellant applied for the certified copy on 30-5- 2023 which was received on 1-6-2023 and the appeal was filed in NCLAT on 10-7-2023 along with the application for condonation of delay. The issue which was dealt by this Court in this case was as to which date triggers limitation to commence when the matter is conclusively heard on one day and the order is directly uploaded on the website on another. It was held that the period to compute limitation to file an appeal under Section 61 IBC from the order of NCLT commences from the date of uploading of the Order by the Registry as the commencement of the period of limitation is intrinsically linked to the date of pronouncement. 25. Therefore, the incident which triggers limitation to commence is the date of pronouncement of the order and in case of non-pronouncement of the order when the hearing concludes, the date on which the order is pronounced or uploaded on the website. 26. However, where the judgment was pronounced in open court, the period of limitation starts running from that very day. The appellant is however entitled to seek relief under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act for excluding the period during which the certified copy was under preparation on an application preferred by that party.” 13. The above judgment has clearly laid down that when the judgment was pronounced in open court, the period of limitation shall start from the I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 9 very date. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also noticed the earlier judgment in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. delivered on 17.09.2023 where it was noted that no order was pronounced. The above judgment has thus, categorically laid down that period of limitation is linked to date of pronouncement. When it is case of the Appellant itself that order was pronounced in the open court on 11.06.2025, the running of limitation cannot remain arrested till 04.07.2025 when it was uploaded, as contended by the Appellant. The above judgment in no manner supports the submission of the Appellant. 14. We need to notice the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited & Ors., (2024) 3 SCC 27”. The above was a case where against order dated 17.05.2023 appeal was filed on 10.07.2023. NCLAT has dismissed the appeal as barred by time. Contention was raised that on 17.05.2023 on the date when matter was heard no substantive order was passed and order was uploaded on 30.05.2023. In the above case, it was thus concluded that limitation for filing the appeal shall commence from 30.05.2023 when order was uploaded. In the above case also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that date on which limitation begins to run is intrinsically linked to the date of pronouncement. In Para 16 of the judgment following has been held: “ 16. From the above discussion of law, it is clear that the date on which the limitation begins to run is intrinsically linked to the date of pronouncement. The question that arises in the facts of the present case, I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 10 therefore, is when is an order deemed to be pronounced. The National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 ("the NCLT Rules") provide guidance in this regard. Rule 89(1) of the NCLT Rules indicates that when NCLAT registry publishes its cause-list, a distinction is drawn between cases listed for pronouncement of orders and other cases. It states as follows: " 89. Preparation and publication of daily cause-list.-( 1) The Registry shall prepare and publish on the notice board of the Registry before the closing of working hours on each working day the cause-list for the next working day and subject to the directions of the President, listing of cases in the daily cause-list shall be in the following order of priority, unless otherwise ordered by the concerned Bench; namely- (a) cases for pronouncement of orders; (b) cases for clarification; (c) cases for admission; (d) cases for orders or directions; (e) part-heard cases, latest part-heard having precedence; and (f) cases posted as per numerical order or as directed by the Bench;" (emphasis supplied)” 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also noticed Rule 89 of NCLT Rules, 2016 in Para 16 and Rule 150 and 151 in Para 17. Para 17 of the judgment is also extracted: I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 11 “ 17. Further, Part XIX of the NCLAT Rules governs the "disposal of cases and pronouncement of orders". The following rules are relevant: 146. Disposal of Cases.- " On receipt of an application, petition, appeal, etc. the Tribunal, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit: Provided that the Tribunal, after considering an appeal, may summarily dismiss the same, for reasons to be recorded, if the Tribunal is of opinion that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding therewith. * 150. Pronouncement of Order.- (1) The Tribunal, after hearing the applicant and respondent, shall make and pronounce an order either at once or, as soon as thereafter as may be practicable but not later than thirty days from the final hearing. (2) Every order of the Tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed and dated by the President or Member or Members constituting the Bench which heard the case and pronounced the order. (3) A certified copy of every order passed by the Tribunal shall be given to the parties. (4) The Tribunal, may transmit order made by it to any court for enforcement, on application made by either of the parties to the order or suo motu. (5) Every order or judgment or notice shall bear the seal of the Tribunal. 151. Pronouncement of order by any one member of the Bench.-( 1) Any Member of the Bench may pronounce the order for and on behalf of the Bench. (2) When an order is pronounced under this rule, the Court Master shall make a note in the order sheet, that the order of the Bench consisting of I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 12 President and Members was pronounced in open court on behalf of the Bench." (emphasis supplied)” 16. In Para 18 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted that as per Rule 150 after hearing the parties, the order may be pronounced either at once or soon thereafter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case noticed that learned counsel for the Respondent has also not disputed that no substantive order was passed on 17.05.2023 by NCLT. Above fact is noticed in Para 19 of the judgment, which is as follows: “19. In the present case, the cause-list for 17-5-2023 placed on record by the appellant indicates that the case was listed for admission and not for pronouncement. Further, on a specific query of the Court, it is not in dispute between the counsel for the appellant and the respondent, that no substantive order was passed on 17-5-2023 by NCLT. In these circumstances, limitation would not begin to run on 17-5-2023 which was the date on which hearings concluded. As no order was passed before 30-5-2023, there was no occasion for the appellant to lodge an application for a certified copy on 17-5-2023. Time for filing an appeal would commence only when the order appealed from was uploaded since prior to that date no order was pronounced.” 17. Thus, in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate’s Case , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that counting limitation from 30.05.2023, dismissal of the appeal was not correct. The judgment of Sanjay Pandurang Kalate does not I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 13 come to any aid to the Appellant in the present case. As noted above, in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate , it was admitted by both the parties that no substantive order was passed on 17.05.2023, which is date of the order, which was subsequently uploaded on 30.05.2023. In the present case, it is case of the Appellant also that on 11.06.2025 NCLT after hearing the parties passed an order in the presence of the Appellant and its counsel. We have already noticed the extracts of meeting of the CoC where the above fact is recorded and in Para 6 of the Rejoinder also the said fact has been admitted. 18. Three Judge Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Nagaraj vs. SKS ISPAT & Power Limited (Supra) was also a case where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that limitation for filing an appeal commences from date when order is pronounced. It was also held that Applicant has to diligently apply for certified copy of the order in event it wishes to file an appeal. It was also observed that parties intend to file appeal has obligation to file certified copy of the order. In Para 31 and 32 of the judgment following has been laid down: “31. The import of Section 12 of the Limitation Act and its Explanation is to assign the responsibility of applying for a certified copy of the order on a party. A person wishing to file an appeal is expected to file an application for a certified copy before the expiry of the limitation period, upon which the "time requisite" for obtaining a copy is to be excluded. However, the time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy is made cannot be excluded. If no application for a certified copy has I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 14 been made, no exclusion can ensue. In fact, the Explanation to the provision is a clear indicator of the legal position that the time which is taken by the court to prepare the decree or order cannot be excluded before the application to obtain a copy is made. It cannot be said that the right to receive a free copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies Act obviated the obligation on the appellant to seek a certified copy through an application. The appellant has urged that Rule 1420 of the NCLAT Rules empowers NCLAT to exempt parties from compliance with the requirement of any of the rules in the interests of substantial justice, which has been typically exercised in favour of allowing a downloaded copy in lieu of a certified copy. While it may well be true that waivers on filing an appeal with a certified copy are often granted for the purposes of judicial determination, they do not confer an automatic right on an applicant to dispense with compliance and render Rule 22 (2) of the NCLAT Rules nugatory. The act of filing an application for a certified copy is not just a technical requirement for computation of limitation but also an indication of the diligence of the aggrieved party in pursuing the litigation in a timely fashion. In a similar factual scenario, NCLAT had dismissed an appeal as time- barred under Section 61(2) IBC since the appellant therein was present in court, and yet chose to file for a certified copy after five months of the pronouncement of the order. 32. The appellant had argued that the order of NCLAT notes that NCLT Registry had objected to the appeal in regard to limitation, to which the appellant had I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 15 filed a reply stating that the limitation period would begin from the date of the uploading of the order, which was 12-3-2020. The appellant submitted that the suo motu order of this Court dated 23-3-2020, taking retrospective effect from 15-3-2020, made under Article 142 of the Constitution, extended the limitation until further orders, which renders the appeal filed on 8-6-2020 within limitation. However it is important to note that this Court had only extended the period of limitation applicable in the proceedings, only in cases where such period had not ended before 15-3-2020. In this case, owing to the specific language of Sections 61(1) and 61(2), it is evident that limitation commenced once the order was pronounced and the time taken by the court to provide the appellant with a certified copy would have been excluded, as clarified in Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, if the appellant had applied for a certified copy within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 61(2) IBC. The construction of the law does not import the absurdity the appellant alleges of an impossible act of filing an appeal against an order which was uploaded on 12-3-2020. However, the mandate of the law is to impose an obligation on the appellant to apply for a certified copy once the order was pronounced by NCLT on 31 -12-20193, by virtue of Section 61(2) IBC read with Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules. In the event the appellant was correct in his assertion that a correct copy of the order was not available until 20-3-2020, the appellant would not have received a certified copy in spite of the application till such date and accordingly received the I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 16 benefit of the suo motu order of this Court which came into effect on 15-3-2020. However, in the absence of an application for a certified copy, the appeal was barred by limitation much prior to the suo motu direction of this Court, even after factoring in a permissible fifteen days of condonation under Section 61(2). The Court is not empowered to condone delays beyond statutory prescriptions in special statutes containing a provision for limitation²². 19. Conclusions have been recorded in Para 33, which are as follows: “D. Conclusion 33. The answer to the two issues set out in Section C of the judgment-(i) when will the clock for calculating the limitation period run for proceedings under IBC; and (ii) is the annexation of a certified copy mandatory for an appeal to NCLAT against an order passed under IBC must be based on a harmonious interpretation of the applicable legal regime, given that IBC is a Code in itself and has overriding effect. Sections 61(1) and (2) IBC consciously omit the requirement of limitation being computed from when the "order is made available to the aggrieved party", in contradistinction to Section 421(3) of the Companies Act. Owing to the special nature of IBC, the aggrieved party is expected to exercise due diligence and apply for a certified copy upon pronouncement of the order it seeks to assail, in consonance with the requirements of Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules. Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act allows for an exclusion of the time requisite for I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 17 obtaining a copy of the decree or order appealed against. It is not open to a person aggrieved by an order under IBC to await the receipt of a free certified copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules and prevent limitation from running. Accepting such a construction will upset the timely framework of IBC. The litigant has to file its appeal within thirty days, which can be extended up to a period of fifteen days, and no more, upon showing sufficient cause. A sleight of interpretation of procedural rules cannot be used to defeat the substantive objective of a legislation that has an impact on the economic health of a nation. 20. The above judgment also thus, clearly laid down that when the order is pronounced, the limitation shall commence. Learned counsel for the Appellant has also relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee, (2025) 9 SCC 483” . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case had occasion to consider the question of limitation in filing an appeal under Section 61 of the I & B Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has occasion to consider interpretation of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the above case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case has also referred and relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Nagaraj vs. SKS ISPAT & Power Limited as well as judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case held that Respondent was not entitled of benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act and appeal was filed beyond 45 days. In Para 26 of the judgment following was held: I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 18 “26. In the present case, Respondent 1 was neither a party to the proceedings before NCLT nor privy to the CoC deliberations, and became aware of the order only upon its subsequent disclosure. However, it is evident that the Company Secretary of the corporate debtor duly informed the listing departments of both NSE and BSE about NCLT order dated 7-4-20222 within 30 minutes of its pronouncement. Hence, the limitation period for filing the appeal commenced on 7- 4-2022 and expired on 7-5-2022. Notably, 7-5-2022 fell on the first Saturday of the month, which is a working day for the Registry of NCLAT. Even otherwise, the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be granted, as Respondent 1 filed the appeal beyond not only the prescribed period of 30 days but also the condonable period of 15 days i.e. on 24-5-2022. In view of the same reason, Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 has also no application to the facts of the present case. Thus, applying the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that Respondent 1 filed the appeal beyond the statutory maximum period of 45 days prescribed under Section 61(2) IBC. Accordingly, the first issue is answered by us.” 21. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case further held that when period of 30+15 days expires, NCLT has no jurisdiction to entertain appeal. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case also held that limitation for filing an appeal commenced in the said case w.e.f. 07.04.2022 when the order was I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 19 passed. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee , thus, in no manner help the Appellant. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, we come to the conclusion that limitation for filing appeal against order dated 11.06.2025 shall commence on pronouncement of the order on 11.06.2025 after excluding 11.06.2025 in computation for limitation. Appeal which was filed by the Appellant on 28.08.2025 was much beyond 45 days from date of pronouncement on 11.06.2025. The delay in filing the appeal being beyond condonable period, application for condonation of delay cannot be allowed. In result, we reject the delay condonation application. Consequently, Memo of Appeal is also rejected. [Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson [Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) NEW DELHI th 25 February, 2026 Archana I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1475 of 2025 </div>