STATUTORY LIMITATION FOR APPEALS UNDER SECTION 61 IBC CANNOT BE OVERRIDDEN BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 198.

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

The appeal was filed on 24.12.2025, resulting in a delay of 103 days.

The IBBI moved an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 391 of 2026) seeking condonation of this delay.

The Appellant argued that under Section 198 of the IBC, the Tribunal has the power to condone such delays.

The Respondents contended that the delay exceeded the mandatory 45-day limit prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Code.

Whether the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC can be extended beyond the 45-day limit (30 days plus 15 days) by invoking Section 198 of the IBC.

Whether Section 198 of the IBC applies to the performance of judicial acts like filing an appeal or is restricted to regulatory/administrative functions of the Board.

The court primarily applied Section 61(2) of the IBC, which stipulates that an appeal must be filed within 30 days, with a maximum extendable period of 15 days if sufficient cause is shown.

It interpreted Section 198 of the IBC, which contains a non-obstante clause allowing the Adjudicating Authority to condone delays where the "Board does not perform any act within the period specified under this Code".

The Tribunal also referred to the principles of "purposive construction" versus "literal interpretation" as established in *Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar*.

The Tribunal also referred to the principles of "purposive construction" versus "literal interpretation" as established in *Bank of Baroda v. MBL Infrastructure Ltd.*

The Tribunal analyzed the statutory scheme and concluded that Section 198 is situated in Part IV, Chapter 2, which deals with the Board's administrative and regulatory functions, such as recommending names for IRPs under Section 16(4) or nominating professionals under Section 82(4).

The Tribunal reasoned that the power under Section 198 is specifically designed to ensure that delays in regulatory acts do not have a "fatal effect" on proceedings and is intended for the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) to overlook the Board's procedural lapses.

Conversely, Section 61(2) is a specific provision governing the appellate jurisdiction of the NCLAT.

The Tribunal held that Section 198 cannot override the mandatory limitation period for filing an appeal because the Board has no statutory "duty" or "specified act" under the Code to file appeals within a particular timeframe that would trigger Section 198.

Furthermore, while acknowledging the IBBI’s status as a "person aggrieved", the Tribunal noted that statutory limitations on appeal are strict and cannot be expanded through a strained interpretation of provisions meant for different administrative purposes.

The Tribunal clarified that Section 198 is inapplicable to the limitation for filing appeals.

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