NCLAT cannot condone insolvency appeals filed beyond the statutory 45-day limitation period.

The Appellant, Sunil Kumar Dahiya, suspended Director of Vigneshwara Developers Private Limited, challenged the NCLT’s order dated 21 May 2026 reviving the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, appointing a new Interim Resolution Professional, and directing fresh invitations for claims.

The order was pronounced and made available in the public domain on 21 May 2026, and a public announcement was issued on 23 May 2026.

The Appellant contended that he was not a party to the application resulting in the impugned order and had not been served notice. He claimed that he became aware of the order only on 2 June 2026, applied for its certified copy on 12 June 2026, and received it on 23 July 2026 due to difficulties in tracing the old case record and intervening court vacations.

The appeal was filed on 18 July 2026, beyond the statutory 30-day period and beyond the additional 15-day condonable period under Section 61(2) of the IBC, according to the Tribunal.

Whether the appeal filed against the NCLT’s order dated 21 May 2026 was maintainable when filed beyond the 30-day limitation period and beyond the further 15-day condonable period under Section 61(2) of the IBC?

Whether the Appellant was entitled to exclusion of time under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, on the basis that the impugned order was not communicated to him and that time was consumed in obtaining its certified copy?

Whether the circumstances pleaded by the Appellant constituted sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal?

The Tribunal applied Section 61(1) and Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, under which an appeal from an NCLT order must ordinarily be filed within 30 days, with the NCLAT empowered to condone delay only for a further period not exceeding 15 days if sufficient cause is shown.

The Tribunal also considered Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, concerning exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy of the order, as invoked by the Appellant.

It proceeded on the principle that insolvency proceedings are time-bound and that the statutory outer limit for condonation under Section 61(2) cannot be extended beyond the additional 15-day period.

The Tribunal further held that mere lack of actual knowledge could not override the limitation framework where the order had been pronounced and made available in the public domain.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was publicly available on 21 May 2026 and that a public announcement followed on 23 May 2026. It therefore rejected the Appellant’s assertion that the order became available only on 2 June 2026.

The Tribunal also found the Appellant’s explanation regarding the certified copy and court vacations insufficient, particularly because the Respondent had obtained a certified copy on 22 June 2026 and the copy relied upon by the Appellant was stated to have been ready on 21 July 2026.

The fact that the exclusion application filed on 18 July 2026 referred to receipt of the certified copy on 23 July 2026 was treated as a materially incorrect and misleading averment.

Applying the strict limitation period under Section 61(2) of the IBC, the Tribunal held that the appeal was filed beyond both the initial 30-day period and the maximum additional 15-day period, and that no sufficient cause had been established for condonation.

The accompanying Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1341 of 2026 was held to be not maintainable under Section 61(2) of the IBC and was consequently dismissed. All other interlocutory applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.