Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2025) 10 NCLAT CK 1684

Mr. K. Parthiban Rasu vs R. Venkatakrishana & Ors.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI Bench · Decided on 16 October 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial) · Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical)
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 516 / 2025 (IA Nos. 1452 & 1453 / 2025)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 502 words

ORDER

Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):

1.

The Appellant in the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 516 / 2025, questions the Impugned Order of 18.07.2025, as it was passed in IA (IBC) / 931 (CHE) / 2025, as preferred in CP (IBC) / 304 / CHE / 2020.

2.

The instant Company Appeal is accompanied with a Condone Delay Application, being IA No. 1452 / 2025 where the Registry has reported that the Company Appeal was preferred before this Tribunal by e-filing the same on 09.10.2025 and as such, the Appeal suffers from a delay of 52 days.

3.

In the said Condone Delay Application, the Appellant has pleaded that the delay was caused because the Appellant is an aged person and he was hospitalised due to his age related issues and hence he could not file the Appeal on time. This is the only ground he has pleaded as raised in Para IIIA of the Application.

4.

Apart from the fact that, the said pleading which has been raised in the application is vague, ailment is a fact which has to be established by supporting documents to justify the prayer that the nature of the ailment and the incapacity, which the deponent suffered from was such that it incapacitated him from filing an affidavit before the Tribunal or preferring the Appeal in time.

5.

In the instant case, if we go through the records, it shows that the Appellant had applied for the Certified copy on 28.07.2025 and he was in receipt of the Certified copy of the order on 01.08.2025.

6.

Even, if we determine it from the date of receipt of the Certified copy of the order, the period of limitation in context of the provisions contained under sub-section 2 of Section 61 of I & B Code, 2016, has expired well before filing of the Appeal. We do not see any plausible explanation given in the application, as to why, with effect from 01.08.2025, till the date of filing of the Company Appeal i.e. 09.10.2025, the Appellant has sat over the issue and has not preferred the Appeal, within the time period prescribed under the law.

7.

Apart from it, so far as the determination of the aspect of limitation for the proceedings under Section 61 of I & B Code, 2016, is concerned, the law in itself is quite explicit in its terms that the period of limitation for filing the Appeal as prescribed under Section 61(2) of I & B Code, 2016, cannot be extended beyond 45 days under any set of circumstances and that grant of condonation of delay beyond the period of 45 days goes outside the ambit of this Appellate Tribunal.

8.

In that eventuality, the Condone Delay Application being IA No. 1452 / 2025 would stand rejected and as a consequence thereto, the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 516 / 2025 would too stand dismissed. The connected Interlocutory Application, if any, would stand closed.