ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)]

The foundation of the proceedings, in these two Company Appeals, from the perspective of law, remains identical, as similar question of law is required to be considered, except for there being certain marginal factual distinctions.

2. In the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 17/2026, the Appellant challenges the impugned order dated 27.05.2025, passed in CP(IB)/48/KOB/2024 which was filed before Learned NCLT, Kochi Bench, under Section 95 of I&B Code, to be read with Rule 7 (2) of I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to the Corporate Debtors), Rules, 2019, which has resulted into admission of the Appellant / Personal Guarantor to face the Insolvency Resolution Process (IRP).

3. Similarly, the connected Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 18/2026, has too been preferred by the Appellant / Personal Guarantor, challenging the order that was rendered in CP(IB)/49/KOB/2024, resulting into admission of the Appellant, to face the Insolvency Resolution Process.

4. These two Company Appeals are accompanied by respective Condone Delay Applications. In Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 17/2026, the Appellant has filed the Condone Delay Application being IA No.47/2026, seeking condonation of 15 days of delay in filing the Appeal, as against the impugned order of 27.05.2025. The ground, which has been taken by the Appellant for seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal was that, the order of 27.05.2025 was uploaded on 28.05.2025, and as no free copy of the order was made available to the Appellant, hence the Appellant had to apply for the certified copy on 24.06.2025, which was prepared on 26.06.2025. The copy of the same was issued on 01.07.2025 and consequentially, the Company Appeal was preferred by e-filing of the same, before the registry of this Appellate Tribunal on 16.11.2025. The Appellant has claimed that the Appeal has been filed with a delay of 15 days only.

5. In Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 18/2026, which too is accompanied with a Condone Delay Application being IA No. 48/2026, the Appellant has sought a condonation of 15 days of delay, that has chanced in preferring the Company Appeal and in the Condone Delay Application, once again its almost the similar reiteration of facts, that after passing of the impugned order on 27.05.2025, the Appellant admits that, the order was uploaded on 28.05.2025 and according to the records available before us, the Appellant is shown to have applied for the certified copy on 24.06.2025, which was issued to the Appellant on 01.07.2025 and thereafter the Company Appeal was preferred before this Appellate Tribunal, by e-filing of the same on 17.11.2025.

6. Obviously both the Appeals have been filed 174 days after the date of pronouncement of the impugned order, which chearly exceeds 30 + 15 days permitted under Section 61 (2) of the Code. Therefore, the question that, would arise for consideration, while determining maintainability of the said Condone Delay Applications, will be as to whether the period spent by the petitioners in prosecuting the respective writ petitions can be excluded while computing the limitation period. When the said writ petitions being Writ Petition (C) 25018/2025 and Writ Petition (C) 25071/2025 were disposed of on 05.11.2025 with the following directions:

"In view of the same, since there is an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioners as provided under Section 60(1) of the I&B Code, 2016, I am not interfering with the impugned orders in these writ petitions. Petitioners are relegated to file appeals as provided under the statute. The period spent by the petitioners for prosecuting these writ petitions should be excluded while computing the limitation period for preferring appeals against the orders impugned in these writ petitions before the NCLAT."

7. It is pertinent to note that after passing of the impugned o