AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):
The Appellant, who was the opposite party to the proceedings under Section 60(5) of I & B Code, 2016, to be read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, questions the impugned order that has been passed by the Ld. Tribunal on IA (IBC) / 2026 (CHE) / 2024 that, was preferred in MA No. 554 / 2019 in CP(IB)/193(CHE)/2018.
The consequential effect of the same had been that, the Interlocutory Application, which was preferred by the Respondent, it was observed that, the Respondent therein i.e. the present Appellant was unable to substantiate their claim within the stipulated time frame and it was observed that the claim that has been raised by the Appellant, as against the Successful Resolution Applicant since it was after the approval of the Plan was not tenable.
The Ld. Tribunal observed that the Assessment Order that, was passed by the Respondent in relation to the Corporate Debtor for the period prior to the Resolution Plan approval i.e. 13.12.2019, cannot be put to enforcement as against the Applicant.
The impugned order was rendered by the Ld. Tribunal on 30.05.2025. Challenging the said order, the Company Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant by filing the same before the Registry of this Tribunal on 02.01.2026 wherein at the stage of inception of the Company Appeal, the Registry has reported that the Company Appeal is delayed by 186 days.
The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant while pressing upon the Condone Delay Application for seeking a condonation of 186 days had submitted that, owing to being a Statutory Body, they had to undertake certain codal formalities prior to filing of the Appeal and that normally consumes sufficient time, before the Appeal could be preferred before this Tribunal and its because of that reason, the delay has chanced.
Upon hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and in order to appreciate the grounds taken by the Appellant in the Condone Delay Application, being IA No. 364 / 2026, we perused the application preferred by the Appellant allegedly explaining the delay that has chanced in preferring the Appeal.
In fact, the contents of the application is nothing, but, a copy paste of the pleading that has raised in the memorandum of appeal and there is nothing on record pleaded by the Appellant making any attempt to explain the delay of 186 days that has chanced in preferring the Appeal.
There is no explanation of any nature whatsoever, giving the reasons for delayed filing of the Company Appeal. Rather, the pleading raised in the application is just contrary to what has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, for the purposes to justify the condonation of delay of 186 days.
Thus, it could be concluded by saying that, the Application does not contain any valid reasons, much less a reason whatsoever, which could at all call for a condonation of delay of 186 days.
What is more surprising is that, the impugned order was rendered on 30.05.2025. If we see the records and particularly the endorsement made by way of a Stamp assigned by the Ld. Tribunal, it shows that the copy of the Order was made available to the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that, is the Appellant herein, on 07.07.2025.
If the copy was made available to the Appellant on 07.07.2025, we cannot visualize any reason as to why the Appeal was e-filed only on 02.01.2026 with the delay of 186 days.
We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the aspect of condonation of delay in the matters, particularly when the Appeal is contemplated to be filed under Section 61 of I & B Code, 2016, are governed by a self-contained period of limitation as contained under Section 61 (2) of I & B Code and the proviso thereto.
Even, if we determined the limitation from the date when the Appellant had already received the copy of the order i.e. 07.07.2025, we find no logic as to why the Appellant was sitting over the issue and kept the matter pending by not filing the Company Appeal, before this Tribunal within the period of limitation particularly when the Certified copy of the order was already made available to the Appellant on 07.07.2025. There is no justification as to why the Appeal was preferred on 02.01.2026.
Looking to the records, the order itself finds an endorsement that the Certified copy of the order was issued to the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant i.e. Mr. B. Vijay, but still, the Appeal was not preferred within the specified time period as contemplated under the I & B Code, 2016, and since, being a special statute the provisions of the general law of limitation will not be applicable and the concept of having a liberal approach as argued for the purposes of filing of an Appeal, cannot be extended as it is not contemplated under the law and besides its not even a ground, which has been taken by the Appellant in the application to justify the long gap from 07.07.2025 to 02.01.2026.
Hence apparently, the Appeal preferred is much beyond the period prescribed under the statute. Hence, the Company Appeal would stand dismissed, since having been preferred much beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 61(2) of I & B Code, 2016. Apart from the fact, that the delay has not at all being attempted to be satisfactorily explained by the Appellant. The Condone Delay Application (IA No. 364 / 2026), would stand rejected. Consequently, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 115 / 2026 too, is accordingly stands dismissed. Connected pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, would stand closed.