O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

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

IA No. 5636 of 2026 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1458 of 2026 and IA No. 5639 of 2026 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1459 of 2026.

Delay condonation application bearing IA No. 5636 of 2026 in CA (AT) (Ins)No. 1458 of 2026 and IA No. 5639 of 2026 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1459 of 2026 have been moved by the Appellants to condone the delay of 40 days which has occurred in filing the appeals against the impugned order dated 18th November 2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (Adjudicating Authority), in IA No. 3892 of 2025, IA No. 3893 of 2025 moved in CP (IB) No. 285 of 2024, whereby the application moved by the appellant has been dismissed as premature.

Keeping in view the identical facts, both delay condonation applications moved in both the appeals are being disposed of by passing this common order.

Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submit that the Applicants are individual home buyers who have acted with due diligence but the delay of 40 days had occurred in filing the present appeal. However, the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the fact that the impugned order dated 18th November 2025 was not communicated to the appellants immediately and the order was uploaded on the portal of the NCLT only on 09th December 2025 and thereafter, immediately upon gaining knowledge of the order, the applicants sought legal assistance for filing the appeal, however, the office of the Counsel was closed from 8th December 2025 to 2nd January 2026, and it is on this account the appeal could not be filed in time.

It is further submitted that the limitation time for filing the appeal i.e. 45 days, expired on 23 January 2026. However, the applicants prepared the appeal, but due to a series of public holidays falling in the last week of January 2026, the appeal could not be filed and after securing the services of the notary public to execute them mandatory affidavits, the Appeal was filed immediately.

It is further submitted that the delay which has occurred in filing the appeal is not intentional and has occurred due to the reasons which were not under the control of the Appellants, and therefore the same be condoned. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate vs Vistara ITCL (India) Limited and others, (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 27.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and have perused the record.

The Registry has reported that the impugned judgment was passed on 18th November 2025, and the limitation starts ticking from the next day i.e. 19th November 2025. The period of 30 days expired on 18th December 2025, while the appeal was e-filed on 3rd February 2026 with a delay of 45 days beyond stipulated 30 days.

Section 61(1) of the IBC stipulates that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Companies Act 2013, any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority “under this Part” may prefer an appeal to NCLAT. Sub-Section (2) of Section 61 provides for a period of limitation in the following terms:

“61. Appeals and Appellate Authority—(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act, 2013, any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

(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.

[…]”

Sub-Section (2) of Section 61 provides for a limitation period of thirty days. The proviso to Section 61(2) provides that NLCAT may allow an appeal to be filed beyond a period of