O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per: Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial)]

1. Instant IA No. 5174 of 2026 has been moved by the applicant/appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1324 of 2026, which has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 17/4/2026 pronounced by the National Company Law Tribunal Indore Bench (Adjudicating Authority) Indore in CP(IB) No. 60 of 2021, praying to condone the delay of 43 days which has occurred in filingthe appeal.

2. We have already heard Shri Manoj Munshi, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellant, as well as Shri RP Agarwal, Ld. Counsel appearing for the RespondentNo. 1, and have perused the record.

3. Learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that the impugned order was pronounced on April 17, 2026, however, the appellant was not promptly informed of the passing of the order by his Counsel, who had beenconducting the proceedings before the Learned Adjudicating Authority.

4. It is further submitted that immediately upon learning about the passing of the impugned order, the appellant acted with utmost diligence and contacted the present Counsel for the purpose of challenging the impugned order by filing an appeal. The appellant also took immediate steps for obtaining the certified copy byapplying on 19th May 2026, which was made available thereafter.

5. It is further submitted that upon receipt of the certified copy and the relevant record, considerable time was necessarily consumed in examining the various pleadings, the report submitted under Section 99 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the documents relied on by the parties and thereafter,the appeal has been filed.

6. It is further submitted that the delay which has occurred in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional, and the same has occurred due to the bona fide circumstances narrated herein before. Despite the appellant acting with due diligence, the appeal could not be filed immediately within the time stipulated, andtherefore the delay occurred in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned.

7. Ld. Sr. Counsel for Appellant has relied on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sagufa Ahmed and Others versus Upper Assam Plywood Products Private Limited and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 3007-3008 of 2020,decided on September 18, 2020.

8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 at the outset submits that the appeal has been filed after 43 days (beyond the 45 days) within which the delay may be condoned by this Appellate Tribunal and this Appellate Tribunal does nothave jurisdiction to condone the delay.

9. It is further submitted that the precedent which has been relied on by learned counsel for the appellant may not provide any benefit to the Appellant, as the same pertains to the proceedings of the Companies Act and there is a remarkable difference between Section 421 of the Companies Act and Section 61 of the IBC.

10. While Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the delay has not been properly explained, and the appellant was in knowledge of the impugned order from the date of its filing and has not filed the appeal within the prescribed period,therefore the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. We, have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is reflected that the factual situation with regard to the facts of the instant case, so far as the same are related to the limitation, is admitted to the parties. It appears to be an admitted fact that the impugned order was passed on 17 April 2026 and thus, the limitation would start ticking from 18 April 2026, and the 30-day period would be over by 17 May 2026, while the Appeal has been e-filed on 29 June 2026.Thus, the appeal has been filed with a delay of 43 days.

12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. and Ors., (2021) ibclaw.in 157 SC, considered the law laid down inSagu