The NCLAT has no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the statutory limit of 45 days (30 days plus 15 days extension) provided under Section 61(2) of the IBC, regardless of the reasons for delay or equitable grounds.

O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

Present is an appeal which has been filed by the Appellant under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (‘IBC’ in short) challenging the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Guwahati Bench) in CP/IB/6/GB/2025.

This appeal has been e-filed before this Tribunal on 17.11.2025 and physically filed on 19.11.2025. The Appeal has been accompanied with I.A No. 7084 of 2024 which is an application praying for condonation of 51 days delay in filing of the appeal. The prayers contained in I.A No. 7084 of 2024 read as follows:

“In view of the above facts and circumstances the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-

a. Allow the present Application, condone the delay of 51 days in filing the captioned appeal and/or

b. Pass such further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble and/or; Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant-Corporate Debtor submitted that the present appeal has been filed assailing the impugned order passed ex-parte by the Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor-Respondent No.1. Admitting that there was delay in the filing of the present appeal, it was however contended that it was not a case of simpliciter routine delay but a delay which had been occasioned by the fact that the Section 7 proceedings had been conducted behind their back and that they acquired knowledge of the said proceedings at a much later point of time after the passing of the impugned order on 21.08.2025. Submission was pressed that there was no proper service of notice upon the Corporate Debtor as no notice was ever delivered unto them and in the absence of valid service or sufficient notice, there is no substance in the assertion made by the Respondent No.1 that the Appellant had intentionally abstained from appearing before the Adjudicating Authority. It was submitted that the Appellant was completely unaware of the filing, hearing and the admission of the Section 7 application. However, once they learned about the impugned order, they acted with due alacrity and applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 07.11.2025 before the NCLT Registry. The certified copy was obtained on 10.11.2025 and thereafter the appeal was filed on 17.11.2025 which demonstrated their bonafide intent of not causing any delay in the conduct of the proceedings. It was therefore contended that when the Section 7 proceedings had been conducted ex-parte by the Adjudicating Authority without effective service and the Appellant was kept in the dark about the Section 7 proceedings, in such circumstances, the limitation must run from the date of knowledge of the impugned order and not from the date of pronouncement of the impugned order so that the ends of justice is not compromised. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Pati Rakhan Vs Chandrani Devi 2021 SCC Online All 143 to contend that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties and the court has to see carefully that there is substance in the explanation given in the delay condonation irrespective of the length of delay.

Rebutting the arguments canvassed by the Appellant, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 that the present appeal has been filed beyond the 30 days statutory limitation period under IBC and the 15 days of discretionary extended period. Since the Appellant has sought condonation of delay beyond the period of 45 days, the IA No. 7084 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay was impermissible under law. It was also added that the certified copy of the impugned order having been applied for by the Appellant after the expiry of the limitation period of 30 days from the date of the pronouncement of the order, the time taken in obtaining the certified c