Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 427

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J
P V Mohammed Equbal – Appellant
Versus
Tata Capital Limited – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 17 / 2026 | Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 18 / 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Vinay Mathew Joseph, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Chandapillai, Advocate for R1, Mr. Akhil Suresh, Advocate for R2

When a High Court holds that a writ petition is not maintainable due to availability of alternative statutory remedy under a special statute, it cannot direct the Appellate Tribunal to exclude the period spent in such writ proceedings for computing limitation under that special statute.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 61(1) - Limitation - Condonation of delay - When a writ petition is held to be not maintainable by a High Court due to availability of alternative statutory remedy under the Code, the High Court cannot issue a direction to exclude the period spent in the writ proceedings while computing limitation for an appeal under the Code. The special statute’s limitation provisions override general law.

(B) Jurisdiction - High Court - Power to condone delay - When a High Court holds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition, it becomes functus officio and loses the authority to pass any order, including a direction to condone delay, which impacts the decision of the Appellate Tribunal on limitation.

(C) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, writ jurisdiction against orders under the I&B Code is maintainable only if the NCLT/NCLAT exercised jurisdiction not vested in it in law. Otherwise, the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 61 must be availed.

Facts of the case:
The Appellants, personal guarantors, challenged admission orders under Section 95 of the I&B Code before the NCLT, Kochi. They filed writ petitions before the High Court of Kerala after expiry of the 30-day limitation period for appeal under Section 61. The High Court disposed of the writ petitions, holding them not maintainable due to alternative remedy, but directed that the period spent in writ proceedings be excluded while computing limitation for filing appeals before the NCLAT. The Appeals were filed 174 days after the impugned orders.

Findings of Court:
The NCLAT held that the appeals were barred by limitation as they were filed beyond the 30+15 days prescribed under Section 61(2). The period spent in pursuing the writ petitions could not be excluded because the writ petitions themselves were filed after the expiry of limitation and were held to be not maintainable by the High Court. Once the High Court held it lacked jurisdiction, it could not pass any positive direction regarding limitation, as it became functus officio.

Issues: (i) Whether the period spent in prosecuting writ petitions before the High Court can be excluded for computing limitation for appeal under the I&B Code? (ii) Whether the High Court, while holding a writ petition not maintainable, could direct the NCLAT to exclude that period?

Ratio Decidendi: The special statute (I&B Code) overrides general law. When a High Court finds a writ petition not maintainable due to alternative statutory remedy, it cannot issue directions that impact the limitation period for that statutory appeal, as it lacks jurisdiction to do so. The statutory limitation under Section 61(2) is strictly time-bound and cannot be extended by general law principles.

Result: Appeals dismissed as barred by limitation.

Table of Content
1. facts identical except marginal factual differences; these are appeals against admission orders under section 95 (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. delay calculation: appeals filed 173-174 days after order, exceeding 30+15 days limit (Para 6 , 7)
3. issue: exclusion of period spent in writ proceedings when writ was filed after limitation expired (Para 8 , 9)
4. high court functus officio after holding writ not maintainable; cannot direct limitation exclusion (Para 10 , 11)
5. precedent: high court lacks power to condone delay or direct it for tribunal proceedings (Para 12 , 13)
6. special statute overrides general law; limitation cannot be extended; appeals dismissed (Para 14 , 15)

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 Peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 427

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALSharad Kumar Sharma, JP V Mohammed Equbal – AppellantVersusTata Capital Limited – RespondentCompany Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 17 / 2026 | Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 18 / 2026

When a High Court holds that a writ petition is not maintainable due to availability of alternative statutory remedy under a special statute, it cannot direct the Appellate Tribunal to exclude the period spent in such writ proceedings for computing limitation under that special statute.

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J
P V Mohammed Equbal – Appellant
Versus
Tata Capital Limited – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 17 / 2026 | Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 18 / 2026