Limitation under insolvency law: an unmaintainable review application cannot extend time for filing an appeal.

An appeal under the insolvency regime was held time-barred where it was filed well beyond the prescribed period and even beyond the extended period. The appellant's reliance on a review application before the Adjudicating Authority did not suspend or extend limitation, because review was not maintainable in that framework. Knowledge of the earlier order was established, and the delay remained unexplained. The appellate challenge was therefore not entertained, leaving the direction to hand over custody of the vehicles undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal against the order directing handover of custody of vehicles was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The appeal was filed long after expiry of the prescribed period. The appellant's reliance on a review application before the Adjudicating Authority did not extend limitation, as review was not maintainable under the insolvency framework and could not justify the delayed filing. Knowledge of the earlier order was established, and the delay beyond even the extended period remained unexplained.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be time-barred and the challenge to the substantive order was not entertained.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed at the threshold on limitation, leaving the earlier direction to hand over custody of the vehicles undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A misconceived and maintainable review application cannot extend or suspend the limitation period for filing an appeal under the insolvency regime.

---