COVID limitation exclusion protected an insolvency claim and condonation plea from being rejected as time-barred.

The Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation orders excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 in computing limitation for proceedings and extended that protection to laws prescribing limitation periods and outer limits for condonation. A claim filed before the Resolution Professional after the original claims period, and the connected application under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, fell within that protected period. The authorities erred in treating the claim as time-barred despite the binding exclusion period, and the delay could not be treated as fatal. The claimant was entitled to have the claim entertained with delay condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's claim before the Resolution Professional, filed after the original claims period but during the period covered by the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation orders, could not be rejected as time-barred and whether the delay in filing the application under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ought to have been condoned.

Analysis: The claim arose in the course of insolvency proceedings and was required to be lodged within the claims period notified after commencement of CIRP. The Supreme Court's suo motu orders, passed in exercise of constitutional powers, directed exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 in computing limitation for all proceedings and extended the benefit to laws prescribing limitation periods and outer limits for condonation. Those directions were binding on all courts, tribunals and authorities. The filing of the claim and the application for condonation fell within the protective ambit of those orders, and the authorities below erred in ignoring their effect while refusing to entertain the claim.

Conclusion: The delay could not be treated as fatal, and the appellant was entitled to have its claim entertained with the delay condoned.

---