Back
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, Judicial Member
Uday Kumar Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Birendra Kumar Agarwal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal maintainability hinges on condonation of delay (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute over section 61 limitation and section 4 applicability (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. section 4 applies only to prescribed 30-day limitation period (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. prescribed period 30 days; condonable 15 days maximum (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. appeal barred by limitation; dismissed (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
(Hybrid Mode)
Per : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):
1. In the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 367 / 2025, the incidental question, which could have been the subject matter of consideration, would be as regards to the question of maintainability of the Company Appeal itself, as it was arising out of a proceedings of IA (IBC) (Plan) No. 8 / 2024, resulting into approval of Resolution Plan. But, owing to the fact that the Company Appeal is accompanied with a Condone Delay Application being IA No. 1100 / 2025 and the same has been vehemently opposed by the Respondents Counsels, we will have to consider and answer the arguments that has been extended by the Ld. Counsels for the Appellant in support of the Condone Delay Application, before we venture into the Company Appe
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
