Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Ms. Santhanam Raiashree

In the instant Company Appeal, the Appellant challenges the impugned order dated 18.12.2024, that was rendered by the Learned NCLT, Chennai Bench in IA/2330/CHE/2023, as it was preferred in CP/IB/137/CHE/2021, whereby the application that, has been preferred under Section 60(5) (C) of the I & B Code, 2016, to be read with Regulations 10, 12-14 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons), Regulations, 2016, to admit the claim, has been rejected.

The instant Company Appeal is accompanied with a Condone Delay Application, being IA No.1762/2025, where according to the Appellant, he has sought a condonation of delay of 348 days in filing the Appeal, which is otherwise reported by the Registry to be suffering from a delay of 320 days. There had been various reasons, which had been assigned by the Appellant in this Application filed in support of the Condone Delay Application. But it is evident from the record that the Appellant has not been diligent in pursuing his case. He has filed his claim before the IRP with a delay of 545 days as can be seen from the relief sought in IA/2330/2023 which was filed before Learned NCLT. Further, the instant Company Appeal itself has been filed with 320 days of delay which is much beyond the condonable period that has been prescribed under the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 60 of the I & B Code, 2016.

The Company Appeal is accompanied with the Certified Copy of the impugned order, which shows that the copy of the order was made available to the Appellant on 23.09.2025, but the Appeal was preferred by e-filing the same much thereafter i.e., on 03.12.2025. Thus, it is apparent that the Appellant, even after getting first-hand knowledge of the proceedings, filed the Appeal beyond 45 days limit, which expired on 07.11.2025. Hence the Appeal will be held to be hopelessly barred by limitation.

There is nothing on record to show that the Appellant had applied for the Certified Copy of the Judgment, within the period of limitation.

It is pertinent to note that, the proceedings were, being taken up before the Learned NCLT, at the behest of the Appellant, as against the order of rejection of their claim, by the IRP. Therefore, it has to be construed that the Appellant was well aware of the proceedings including passing of the order which he seeks to impugn.

In that eventuality, it becomes all the more necessary that the Appellant, ought to have exercised due diligence and should have preferred an Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as contemplated under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, and ought not to have taken a chance that, he was awaiting the service of the order, even after the expiry of period of limitation and the condonable period as prescribed under the statutes. Therefore, too, the aspect of limitation has to be decided against the Appellant.

Hence, on that exclusive ground itself, the Company Appeal, since suffering from the vices of being barred by limitation, as prescribed under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, the Condone Delay Application, being IA No.1762/2025, would stand rejected and as a consequence thereto, the Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.634/2025, too would stand dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications would stand closed.