NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 294 of 2026 &

I.A. No. 1085 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

Dhirajbhai Parbatbhai Lakkad …Appellant Versus Ramesh Kumar Totla …Respondent Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Advocate.

For Respondent :

O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

19.02.2026 : I.A. No. 1085/2026

1. This is an application praying for condonation of 17 days delay in filing of the appeal.

2. The order impugned was passed on 10.12.2025 and this appeal has been e-filed on 25.01.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay is only 16 days and 24.01.2026 being the 4th Saturday and it was filed on 25.01.2026. The issue raised by the appellant is fully covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.1862/2024] in the matter of ‘BSE Ltd.’ Vs. ‘Mrudula Brodie & Ors.’ decided on 21.02.2025. In paragraphs 15 & 24, following was held:

“15. Section 61, sub-section (2) clearly provides that prescribed period for limitation is 30 days for filing an Appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 61. The proviso, which empowers the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal to allow an Appeal after expiry of the said period of 30 days, if there is sufficient cause for not filing the Appeal, but such period shall not exceed 15 days, is the period, which cannot be held to be prescribed period. The proviso uses the expression “after the expiry of the said period of thirty days”, which clearly means that prescribed period for limitation is only 30 days. The submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant is that 15 days period, which is condonable period is also a period, on which Rule 3 shall be applicable. Hence, if the 15 days period is falling on a day when Court is closed, the said benefit also needs to be extended. The submission advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant is regarding interpretation of Rule 3. Rule 3 uses expression “Where a period is prescribed by the Act and these rules or under any other law or is fixed by the Appellate Tribunal for doing any act”. The prescribed period under the IBC under Section 61 is 30 days and the period of 15 days as provided under Section 61, subsection (2) proviso, cannot be said to be prescribed period for filing an Appeal. The power to condone the delay upto 15 days, given by proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 61, cannot be held to be a period prescribed as referred to in the 1st sentence of Rule 3. The import of the Rule can further be deciphered from expression “for doing any act”. For doing any act, is referable to first part of the Rule 3, thus, where a period is prescribed by the Act and these rules or under any other law or is fixed by the Appellate Tribunal for doing any act. The expression ‘for doing any act’ is referable to expression ‘fixed by the Appellate Tribunal for dong any act’. The condonable period of 15 days provided under Section 61, sub-section (2) cannot be considered to be covered by expression “for doing any act”. The power to condone the delay of 15 days is the power vested in the Appellate Tribunal and there is no applicability of Rule 3 with regard to power of condonation vested in this Appellate tribunal for condonation of delay of 15 days. The submission of the Appellant that by virtue of Rule 3, in event 15th day is falling on a day, on which the Tribunal is closed, the said period also needs to be extended has to be rejected.

24. We have extracted the provision of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, which contains heading “Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed”. The provision provides that where the prescribed period for any suit or appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the date when the court re-opens. Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules specifically provides that in computing the time, the day from which the said period is to be reckoned shall be excluded, and if the last da