NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1476 of 2025 &

I.A. No. 5722, 5777 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF:

Surat Municipal Corporation …Appellant Versus Akashanga Processors Pvt. Ltd & Anr. …Respondents Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Mohit Paul, Ms. Rangoli Seth and Mr. Rohit, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Shubhanshu Tiwari, Advocate.

O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

25.02.2026 : I.A. No. 5722/2025

1. This is an application praying for condonation of 102 days delay in refiling of the appeal.

2. The appeal has been filed by Surat Municipal Corporation. In paragraphs 5 to 7 of the delay condonation application for refiling, the reasons for delay has been given, which are as follows:

“5. That further, the office of the Advocate remained closed from 01.06.2025 to 30.06.2025 owing to the summer vacation in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and consequently, the process of redrafting and compliance with the Registry's directions was delayed. 6. Thereafter, Appeal was sent to the Appellant on 15.07.2025 after curing the defects marked by the Registry for the perusal of the client and the same was received back by the office of the counsel on

07.08.2025 with certain instructions by the client.

7. That after making the necessary changes as suggested, the appeal was again sent back to the Appellant on 20.08.2025. After the final approval, the accompanying appeal along with necessary applications and fresh affidavit was received back by office of the counsel in September 2025. This led to an inadvertent delay in the preparation, finalization, and re-filing of the appeal in the present matter.”

3. Learned counsel for the respondent refuting the submissions submits that there are no explanation of delay and the nature of the defect has been noticed in paragraph 4 could have been very well be cured by the appellant within the relevant time.

4. The appellant being the Surat Municipal Corporation, it is submitted that the approvals were required on different stages and for refiling also necessary approvals were obtained, which has been mentioned in paragraph

7.

5. We find sufficient cause shown in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the refiling delay condonation application. Refiling delay condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.1476/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Court – I, Ahmedabad), by which the application filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) has been allowed. SRA has filed the application with the prayers as noted in paragraph 1 of the impugned order which is as follows:

“a) Allow the present Application;

b) Pass appropriate orders directing the Respondent to refund to the Applicant No. 1 an amount of Rs. 39,96,685/- (Rs. Thirty Nine Lakhs, Ninety Thousand and Six Hundred and Eighty Five Only) (along with interest) paid by the Applicant No. 1 under protest towards pre-CIRP dues of Municipal tax which remain unpaid by the Corporate Debtor for removing the seal from the premises of the Corporate Debtor;

c) Pass any other order/relief as this Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority may deem fit in the interest of equity and justice.”

3. The relevant facts in the present case are as follows:

i. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) commenced on

02.12.2020 by an order of the adjudicating authority.

ii. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) in 7^th Meeting approved the resolution plan submitted by the SRA which was approved by the adjudicating authority and appeal against the order approving the plan was also filed in this Tribunal, which was dismissed subject to certain modifications.

iii. Under the resolution plan amount of Rs.27,368/- was proposed to be paid to the appellant to keep the corporate debtor as a going concern, the said amount was paid, however, the appellant did not open the seal which w