Section 198 delay condonation powers cannot override the statutory limitation periods prescribed for filing appeals under Section 61.

The Appellant, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), filed an appeal challenging an order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the NCLT (Adjudicating Authority), Mumbai, which approved a Resolution Plan regarding Township Developers India Ltd.

The appeal was filed on 24.12.2025, resulting in a delay of 103 days beyond the initial 30-day limitation period.

The IBBI filed I.A. No. 391 of 2026 seeking condonation of this delay, arguing that under Section 198 of the IBC, the limitation could be overridden.

The Respondents opposed the application, stating the delay exceeded the maximum condonable period of 15 days prescribed under Section 61(2).

Whether the Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has the jurisdiction to condone a delay in filing an appeal that exceeds the 45-day outer limit (30 days + 15 days) prescribed under Section 61(2) of the IBC.

Whether Section 198 of the IBC, which allows the Adjudicating Authority to condone delays in acts performed by the Board, overrides the appellate limitation period set out in Section 61.

The court primarily applied Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, which mandates that appeals must be filed within 30 days, with a discretionary extension not exceeding 15 days upon showing sufficient cause.

It further interpreted Section 198 of the IBC, which contains a non-obstante clause allowing the Adjudicating Authority to condone delays when the Board fails to perform an act within a specified period under the Code.

The court also referred to principles of "purposive construction" as established in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar.

The court also referred to principles of "purposive construction" as established in Bank of Baroda v. MBL Infrastructure Ltd. regarding the harmony between text and context.

The Court rejected the Appellant’s contention that the non-obstante clause in Section 198 overrides Section 61.

It reasoned that Section 198 is specifically designed for regulatory and administrative functions that the Board is "specified" to perform within certain timelines (e.g., recommending an IRP under Section 16(4) within 10 days).

The Court found no provision in the IBC that "specifies" a period for the Board to file an appeal other than the general limitation in Section 61.

Applying the principle that "interpretation must depend on the text and context," the Tribunal held that Section 198 is intended to prevent technical delays in the CIRP process from being fatal, and it cannot be used to expand the appellate jurisdiction of the NCLAT.

Since the appeal was filed with a 103-day delay, it stood outside the maximum 45-day window permitted by the statutory mandate of Section 61(2).

Consequently, I.A. No. 391 of 2026 for condonation of delay was rejected, and the Memo of Appeal was dismissed as time-barred.

While the Tribunal acknowledged that IBBI has the locus standi to be an "aggrieved person," it emphasized that such status does not exempt a regulator from strict adherence to statutory limitation periods.