Statutory limitation under insolvency law barred the appeal, so alleged defects in the resolution schemes were not examined on merits.

An appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was held time-barred because the statutory limitation under the Code could not be extended beyond the prescribed outer limit, and a notification could not override that scheme. As a result, the appellate tribunal found the appeal not maintainable and declined to entertain the challenge. On merits, it noted that the impugned schemes treated as resolution plans were legally infirm for want of notice to an unsecured creditor and for non-compliance with the requirements governing resolution plans, including conformity with the law in force and the statutory standard for approval. No interference was granted because the limitation bar deprived the tribunal of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable and within limitation. (ii) Whether the impugned schemes treated as resolution plans could be interfered with on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was maintainable and within limitation.

Analysis: The appeal was required to be filed within the period prescribed under Section 61(2), with condonation permissible only to the limited extent provided by the Code. The Tribunal applied the earlier view that the outer limit for entertaining an appeal under Section 61 could not be extended beyond the statutory period, and that the notification granting a longer period could not override the substantive limitation scheme of the Code. On that basis, the appeal was held to be beyond time and not entertainable.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be not maintainable and barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned schemes treated as resolution plans could be interfered with on merits.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded that the schemes suffered from several infirmities, including lack of notice to an unsecured creditor and non-compliance with the requirements governing resolution plans, including conformity with the law in force and the requirements of Section 30(2)(e) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It further observed that the schemes appeared illegal, but declined to grant relief because the appeal itself was not maintainable and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to interfere in view of the statutory bar of limitation.

Conclusion: No interference was made with the impugned schemes on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was finally disposed of without setting aside the impugned schemes, because the statutory bar of limitation deprived the Tribunal of jurisdiction to entertain the challenge, even though the schemes were found to be legally infirm.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate tribunal cannot entertain an appeal under Section 61 beyond the statutory limitation period, and a notification or executive direction cannot enlarge that period in conflict with the Code.

---