R. Sugumaran Liquidator Of M/s Briar Knoll Mills Pvt Ltd. vs Mr. Gunasekaran, Liquidator Of M/s Paramount Mills Pvt Ltd.

(Hybrid Mode)

This company appeal is listed under the head of defective case. But considering to the nature of defects, which are pertaining to supply of the clear copies, as well as translated documents, we feel that we may not require those defects to be rectified. owing to the preliminary defect, which has been pointed out by the Registry, that the company itself is barred by limitation, as there happens to be a delay of 111 days in preferring the appeal. Coupled with the fact that, the company appeal is accompanied with the Condone Delay Application in refiling of the appeal being IA No. 217/2026, seeking condonation of 33 days of delay.

Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, so far as IA No. 217/2026 is concerned, where the Appellant has sought a condonation of 33 days of delay, that has changed in refiling of the company appeal. Since the issue of Condonation of Delay in refiling is not bound by statutory restrictions.

We take a pragmatic view, owing to the ground taken by the Appellant in para 3 (b) & (c) of the application. The application which was preferred for seeking condonation of 33 days of delay in refiling of the company appeal would stand condoned, hence the IA No. 217/2026, would stand allowed, and delay in refiling would stand condoned.

We proceed to hear the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant on the Condone Delay Application, being IA No. 216/2026. The following dates would be relevant:

The Appellant is deriving his scope of arguing the Condone Delay Application from the observation that were made in the order of 12.08.2025. It is argued that, since the liberty has been granted to put a challenge to the order of 24.07.2025, hence that liberty is to be construed, as to be granting a latitude to the restrictions of limitations imposed by the statute under Section 61(2) of the I & B Code, 2016.

The order of 12.08.2025 was not acceded by the Appellant at that stage even. Rather, he preferred a Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 513/2025, which too was dismissed by this Appellate Tribunal on 29.10.2025, but still in the said order, since we had observed that the liberty will be open for the Appellant to resort to the recourses, as available to him in accordance with law. It is in pursuance to the exception granted to the Appellant by an order of 29.10.2025 passed in the aforesaid company appeal, where the challenge was given to the order of 12.08.2025. The instant company appeal had been preferred by the Appellant by filing the same before the Registry only on 12.12.2025. The Registry has reported that the company appeal is suffering from delay of 111 days.

The Appellant submits that, he would be entitled to be granted an extension of limitation, owing to the observations, which has been made by this Appellate Tribunal in the order 29.10.2025, granting the liberty to the Appellant to challenge the impugned order in accordance with law. Grant of an exemption by this Appellate Tribunal, for challenging an order, will always be in accordance with law and it will always bind the Appellant by the restrictions imposed by the proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016. Because by judicial dictum, there cannot be an overriding of a statutory mandate as contemplated under law, nor we had ever directed to override the implications of limitation, if the challenge is given to the impugned order.

Owing to the fact that apparently if the limitation is construed from the date of order i.e., 24.07.2025 and despite of the exemptions as dealt to be extended to the Appellant by the order of 12.08.2025 and 29.10.2025, if that is taken into consideration. Since having observed that the observations therein, were not in exclusion to the implications of law flowing from the proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016.

The company appeal would be barred by limitation, and hence the same would accordingly stand 'dismissed' on the ground of limitation itself.