AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
The instant company appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay being IA 1151 of 2026 seeking for the condonation of 18 days of delay in preferring this appeal, whereas, the registry of this tribunal reported that the appeal has been preferred with a delay of 83 days in filing the appeal.
When this appeal was taken up before this Tribunal on 18.08.2026, the counsel of the applicant submitted that he would be filing a better affidavit explaining the delay which will show that the delay caused is well within the condonable limit.
Accordingly, the appellant has filed an additional affidavit. In the said affidavit he has put forth the following facts for reference:
The appeal which was preferred before this Tribunal challenging the order dated 06.04.2026 passed in IA 283 of 2025. The said IA 283 of 2025 was filed before the NCLT, on 28.03.2025 through the counsels, Mr. Arpit Singh and Mr. Bharat Nenwani. On 23.04.2025 IA was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Later, another counsel Adv. Sammith was engaged on change of vakalth, who filed an application for recall of the order and that was allowed. On 10.2025, orders on IA 283 of 2025 was reserved, recording the appearance of Adv. Sammith.
In the meantime, the main C.P. was heard a couple of times and on 06.04.2026, IA 283 of 2025 was listed for pronouncement of orders. The cause list reflected the name of Adv. Arpit Singh against IA No. 238/2025, while the order of 06.04.2026, records the name of Adv. Bharat Nenwani, both of whom are the previous Counsels.
The contention of the applicant is that
neither the applicant nor the new counsel Adv. Sammith was aware of the order of 06.04.2026.
The applicant was informed of the passing of the order on 10.06.2026 and he has received the copy of the order vide an e-mail dated 17.06.2026, in which the erstwhile counsel forwarded the mail communication notifying the final order in IA 283 of 2025 issued by the Registry of NCLT, Bengaluru.
The limitation has to be calculated from the date of the knowledge of the order, i.e., 17.06.2026 since he was not present before the Tribunal on the date of pronouncement and in that case, the date of e-filing of the appeal i,e., 28.07.2026, is within the condonable period. Hence, considering the facts and the reasons, the applicant prays for the delay to be condoned.
The following are the dates for our consideration;
| Date of Impugned order | 06.04.2026 |
Date of expiry of limitation period of 30 days | 06.05.2026 |
Date of expiry of the condonable period of 15 days | 21.05.2026 |
| Date of e-filing of the appeal | 28.07.2026 |
From the above table, it is seen that the appeal has been filed 83 days after 06.05.2026, that is, end date of limitation period.
The appellant has attempted to argue that he got knowledge fof the order only after receiving the copy of the order on 17.06.2026, that 45 days period will expire only on 31.07.2026 and therefore his appeal, having been filed on 28.07.2026 is within the condonable period and hence the delay ought to be condoned. This contention is not acceptable because it is well established principle that the limitation has to be construed from the date of the pronouncement of the order and not from the date on which the party has acquired the knowledge as established in the judgment of V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd., [(2022) 2 SCC 244] and A. Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao, [ (2025) 6 SCC 618]. If limitation is computed from the date of pronouncement of the order, the appeal is seen to have been filed with a delay of 83 days, which is far beyond the condonable period.
The contentions of the appellant that the knowledge was acquired only on 10.06.2026 and the copy of the order was made available only on 17.06.2026 cannot be accepted because as per the NCLT website, the order passed by NCLT on 06.04.2026 in IA 283 of 2025 was uploaded on 09.04.2026, itself. So, the contention that the order was not available till 17.06.2026 cannot be accepted. And even if the limitation is construed to commence from 10.06.2026, we find that the appeal is preferred with 18 days of delay which is also beyond the condonable period.
Hence, we are of the view that the contentions and the reasons put forth by the applicants cannot be accepted. The applicant cannot be granted liberty for his own inaction. The IA No. 1151/2026 is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, the appeal Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.401/2026 stands closed, having been barred by limitation.