Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Tata Steel Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 408 of 2023
Decided On : 07-05-2025
Key Points: - The NCLAT allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal beyond the statutory period of 45 days under the IBC, which was challenged (!) (!) . - Section 61(2) of the IBC prescribes a limitation period of 30 days for filing an appeal, with a proviso allowing for an additional 15 days for condonation of delay upon showing sufficient cause, making a total of 45 days (!) (!) (!) . - The appellant argued that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory 45-day period, rendering it time-barred (!) (!) . - The respondent argued that the limitation period commenced later due to delayed disclosure and that the appeal was filed within the condonable period (!) (!) (!) . - Section 238A of the IBC makes the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable to IBC proceedings (!) (!) . - Section 4 of the Limitation Act and Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules extend the limitation period to the next working day if the prescribed period expires on a holiday (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - However, the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act is only available for the "prescribed period of limitation" and not for the period extendable by the court in its discretion (the condonable period) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 61 IBC commences from the date of pronouncement of the order by the NCLT (!) (!) . - The NCLAT has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory maximum of 45 days prescribed under Section 61(2) of the IBC (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The NCLAT's order condoning the delay beyond the statutory period was held to be ultra vires and set aside (!) (!) . - Time is of the essence in statutory appeals, and the prescribed limitation period must be strictly adhered to; even a delay of one day is fatal if the statute does not provide for its condonation (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant's arguments on limitation. (Para 4) |
| 3. respondent's arguments and counterclaims. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's analysis of statutory limits and implications. (Para 6) |
| 5. court's observation on limitation computation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. court's ruling on the power to condone delay. (Para 11) |
| 7. conclusion on condonation and order set aside. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 8. final order and closure of applications. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal1[For short, “NCLAT”]. By the said order, the NCLAT has allowed interlocutory application bearing No. 1667 of 2022 filed by Respondent No. 1 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal bearing no. C.A. (AT) (Insolvency) No. 615 of 2022.
2. The appellant is the successful resolution applicant for Rohit Ferro-Tech Limited (Corporate Debtor) having its resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors and subsequently by the National Company Law Tribunal2[For short, “NCLT”], Kolkata, by order dated 07.04.2022 in CP(IB)/1214(KB)/2018. Respondent No.1 is an erstwhile minority shareholder of the Corporate Debtor.
3. Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20163[For short, “IBC”] to set aside the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority and direct the Resolution Professional to scrutinise the resolution plan proposed by the appellant in accordance with Section 30 (2) IBC. Along with the appeal, he also filed an interlocutory application bearing No. 1667 of 2022 praying for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the same. By the order impugned herein, the NCLAT condoned the delay and allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us with the present appeal.
4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the NCLT passed the order approving the appellant’s resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor under Section 31 IBC on 07.04.2022. In terms of Section 61 (2) IBC, the limitation period of 30 days for filing an appeal against the said order expired on 07.05.2022, which fell on a Saturday. Even assuming the benefit of Section 4 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 were available, the additional / grace/ condonable period of 15 days as provided under the proviso to Section 61 (2), expired on 22.05.2022. Therefore, the right of Respondent No.1 to file an appeal stood extinguished on 22.05.2022 itself.
4.1. Adding further, it is submitted that after the expiry of the 30-day limitation period and the additional 15-day grace / condonable period, Respondent No. 1 e-filed the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay before the NCLAT, on 23.05.2022, which was the 46th day from the date of the NCLT’s order. The physical filing of the appeal was done on 24.05.2022, i.e., on the 47th day. Accordingly, the appeal was clearly barred by limitation and not maintainable in law. However, by the order impugned herein, the NCLAT erroneously allowed the application for condonation of delay by observing that Respondent No. 1 was entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963. It incorrectly held that the 30-day limitation period for filing the appeal expired on 09.05.2022 instead of 07.05.2022, on the ground that 07.05.2022 was a Saturday and, therefore, a court holiday. Consequently, the NCLAT wrongly computed the additional / grace/ condonable period of 15 days from 10.05.2022 instead of 08.05.2022, and concluded that this period expired on 24.05.2022 - the date on which Respondent No.1 physically filed the appeal before the NCLAT.
4.2. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat Powers Limited & Others, (2022) 2 SCC 244, Kalpraj Dharamshi & Another v. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 401, Safire Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Reg
The NCLAT cannot condone delays beyond the statutory maximum of 45 days under the IBC, emphasizing strict adherence to limitation periods in insolvency processes.
(1) Appeal – Period of limitation – Any party which is aggrieved by decision of NCLT can file appeal before NCLAT – Statutory time limit of 30 days within which appeal can be preferred, is extendable....
(1) Appeal is a creature of statute – There is a fundamental distinction between right to file a suit and right to file an appeal.(2) Appeal against order passed in miscellaneous application in a liq....
Section 4 of Limitation Act applies only to 30-day prescribed period under IBC Section 61(2), not 15-day condonable period; vacation benefit unavailable if commencing after 30 days, rendering appeals....
The IBC mandates strict adherence to limitation periods for appeals, emphasizing timely resolution in insolvency proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of clarity and consistency in administrative guidance, particularly regarding the computation of limitation for filing an appeal. Th....
Delay in filing an appeal under the IBC cannot be excused based on lack of knowledge regarding the proceedings; Limitation must be strictly construed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
