01Facts
The Appellant, a personal guarantor for the Corporate Debtor (M/s. MBS Impex Pvt. Ltd.), challenged an order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Hyderabad), which appointed a Bankruptcy Trustee
p. 2The Appellant filed the appeal on 07.07.2025, along with an application (IA No. 1106/2025) to condone a self-calculated delay of 15 days
pp. 2-3The Appellant contended that he only learned of the order on 16.05.2025 and was hindered by the NCLT summer vacation (10.05.2025 to 25.05.2025) and technical glitches on the BharatKosh portal, which delayed his application for a certified copy until 09.06.2025
p. 3The Respondents opposed the condonation, arguing that the Appellant was a party to the original proceedings and that the Registry remained functional during the vacation
p. 402Issues
i.1. Whether the summer vacation period of the NCLT can be excluded from the 30-day limitation period under Section 61(2) of the IBC?
p. 3, 6ii.2. Whether the limitation period for filing an appeal commences from the date of pronouncement or the date of knowledge of the order?
p. 6iii.3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to condone a delay exceeding 15 days beyond the initial 30-day limitation?
p. 703Law Applied
Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, which mandates a 30-day limitation period for appeals, extendable by a maximum of 15 days only upon showing "sufficient cause"
p. 3, 5Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, and Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which permit the exclusion of closure periods only if the limitation period expires while the Tribunal is closed
p. 3, 6The court applied the precedent established in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat Power, which clarifies that limitation runs from the date of pronouncement and emphasizes the necessity of diligence in applying for certified copies
p. 7Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Section 61Section 95
Limitation Act, 1963 Section 4
04Reasoning
The Tribunal rejected the Appellant's calculation of delay.
p. 5It noted that since the impugned order was pronounced on 08.05.2025, the 30-day limitation ended on 06.06.2025, and the maximum condonable 15-day period ended on 21.06.2025
p. 5The Tribunal observed that Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules and Section 4 of the Limitation Act did not apply because the Tribunal was functional well before the expiry of the limitation on 06.06.2025
p. 6The Appellant’s plea regarding the "date of knowledge" was dismissed because he was a contesting party to the proceedings; thus, limitation commenced upon pronouncement
p. 6The Tribunal further found a lack of diligence, as the Appellant failed to apply for a certified copy until after the 30-day period had already lapsed
pp. 6-7Ultimately, the Tribunal determined the actual delay to be 32 days, which exceeds its statutory power to condone
p. 705Holding
The Tribunal held that the delay was 32 days, not 15, and emphasized that it lacks the authority to condone any delay exceeding the 15-day grace period provided under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the IBC
p. 7Consequently, IA No. 1106/2025 for condonation of delay was rejected, and the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 371/2025 was dismissed as barred by limitation
p. 7All pending interlocutory applications were closed
p. 7Original Court PDF
Shri Anurag GuptavsRare Asset Reconstruction Limited & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
