Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 581

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Barun Mitra, MT
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II Ro, Kandivali-East – Appellant
Versus
Mamta Binani – Respondent
Company Appeal No. 503 of 2026|C.P. (I.B.) No. 530/2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjay Agarwal, Prachi, Shikha Saloni
For the Respondents: Ananya Pratap Singh, Gyanika Kochar, Anurag Sahay

Limitation for appeal under Section 61(2) IBC is strictly 30+15 days from date of pronouncement of order; no condonation beyond this period even for technical glitches or hardship.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 61(2) - Limitation for filing appeal - Statutory period of 30 days extendable by maximum 15 days - Condonation of delay - Appeal filed on 46th day from impugned order - Technical glitch in e-filing portal - Held, delay beyond 30+15 days is uncondonable even on equitable grounds - Limitation starts from date of pronouncement of order, not from date of upload or knowledge - Tribunal being creature of statute cannot exceed jurisdiction - Appeal rejected for being time-barred. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20)

(B) Limitation - Commencement - Date of pronouncement of order - Upload or knowledge of order irrelevant - Precedents: Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited; V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited - Limitation runs from pronouncement date irrespective of when appellant gained knowledge. (Paras 12, 13)

(C) Limitation - Condonation - Strict outer limit - Even single day beyond 30+15 days cannot be condoned - Technical glitches or hardship not sufficient to override statutory mandate - National Spot Exchange Ltd. vs. Anil Kohli; Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee - Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction to extend time beyond statutory freeze. (Paras 17, 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, challenged an order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Mumbai) in a company petition. The appeal was e-filed on 30.01.2026, i.e., on the 46th day from the date of the impugned order. The Appellant sought condonation of 16 days delay, citing that the order was uploaded on 19.12.2025 and came to their knowledge on 29.12.2025. They also claimed technical glitches in the e-filing portal prevented filing on the 45th day (29.01.2026), despite efforts to e-file from 28.01.2026 onwards.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the limitation period of 30 days from the date of pronouncement (15.12.2025) expired on 14.01.2026, and the further condonable period of 15 days expired on 29.01.2026. The appeal was filed on 30.01.2026, i.e., on the 46th day, beyond the statutory outer limit. The Tribunal held that limitation commences from the date of pronouncement, not from upload or knowledge. Technical glitches, though genuine, cannot justify condonation beyond the 30+15 days period as the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to extend time beyond the statutory freeze. The appeal was rejected as time-barred.

Issues: The main issues were whether limitation for filing an appeal under Section 61 IBC commences from the date of pronouncement of the order or from upload/knowledge, and whether technical glitches in the e-filing portal constitute sufficient cause to condone delay beyond the 30+15 days outer limit.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that limitation under Section 61(2) IBC runs from the date of pronouncement of the order, irrespective of when the appellant gained knowledge. The Tribunal, being a creature of statute, cannot condone delay beyond the maximum 30+15 days period, even on equitable grounds or due to technical difficulties. The strict statutory outer limit must be adhered to.

Result: Delay condonation application rejected. Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction of appeal and condonation of delay application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. statutory limitation period under section 61(2) ibc is 30 days extendable by 15 days. (Para 3 , 4)
3. appellant's grounds for condonation: late knowledge, technical glitches in e-portal. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. respondent's opposition: limitation runs from pronouncement, technical glitches insufficient. (Para 8)
5. key issues: commencement of limitation from pronouncement vs upload; effect of technical glitches. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
6. limitation begins from date of pronouncement, not upload or knowledge; precedents sanjay pandurang kalate and v. nagarajan. (Para 12 , 13)
7. technical glitches confirmed by registry report but cannot extend statutory outer limit. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
8. distinction from madras high court case; reliance on gujarat high court and supreme court judgments: delay beyond 30+15 days uncondonable. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
9. ratio decidendi: tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond statutory freeze even on equitable grounds. (Para 20)

O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

1.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 impugned order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-I) in CP(IB)/530(MB)2020. The Appeal is accompanied with an application praying for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal which is being taken up for consideration .

2. Company Appeal No. 503 of 2026 has been e-filed by the Applicant before this Tribunal on 30.01.2026. The Appeal has been accompanied with I.A. No. 1951 of 2026 which is an application praying for condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal. The prayers contained in I.A. No. 1951 of 2026 read as follows:

“a. Allow the present application thereby condoning the delay of 16 days in filing the accompanying Appeal;

b. Pass any other such order(s)/direction(s) that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in light of the abovementioned facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice.”

3. At the very outset we take notice that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the IBC is 30 days, which period is, however, extendable by a further period not exceeding 15 days in the event the Tribunal is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the 30 days permissible period of limitation. Section 61(2) is extracted below:

“61. Appeals and Appellate Authority.

(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days.”

(Emphasis supplied)

4. When we look at the present sequence of events, we find that the impugned order bears the date 15.12.2025. Calculated therefrom, the statutory period of 30 days for filing the Appeal came to an end on 14.01.2026. Calculated forward, the further extendable period of 15 days expired on 29.01.2026. However, the present Appeal has been e-filed on 30.01.2026 involving a time-span of 46 days from the date of pronouncement of the impugned order. It is an admitted fact that the Appeal was filed on the 16^th day after the expiry of initial 30 days from the date of the impugned order.

5. The grounds for condonation of delay as mentioned in I.A. No. 1951 of 2026 are that the Applicant was not a party before the Adjudicating Authority and acquired knowledge of the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 only upon receipt of communication dated 26.12.2025 sent by Respondent No.1 which the Applicant received on 29.12.2025. It has further been pleaded that the impugned order was uploaded on the portal only on 19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 581

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALBarun Mitra, MTRegional Provident Fund Commissioner-II Ro, Kandivali-East – AppellantVersusMamta Binani – RespondentCompany Appeal No. 503 of 2026|C.P. (I.B.) No. 530/2020

Limitation for appeal under Section 61(2) IBC is strictly 30+15 days from date of pronouncement of order; no condonation beyond this period even for technical glitches or hardship.

Cases Referred (3)

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Barun Mitra, MT
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II Ro, Kandivali-East – Appellant
Versus
Mamta Binani – Respondent
Company Appeal No. 503 of 2026|C.P. (I.B.) No. 530/2020