Valid institution of insolvency appeals requires fee-paid delay applications; later payment does not cure limitation defects.

Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules requires strict compliance when instituting an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. A condonation-of-delay application filed without the prescribed fee is not validly instituted, and later payment does not relate back to the date of electronic filing of defective papers. The application gains legal existence only when the fee is paid; if both the prescribed limitation period and the condonable period have then expired, the appeal cannot be entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether appeals filed with condonation-of-delay applications for which the prescribed fees were paid only subsequently were validly instituted within the limitation period.

Analysis: Rule 22 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 requires strict compliance for institution of an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A condonation-of-delay application not accompanied by the prescribed fee is not a validly instituted application; subsequent payment does not relate back to the date on which defective appeal papers were electronically filed. The applications acquired legal existence only upon payment of the fees, by which time the prescribed and condonable limitation periods had elapsed.

Conclusion: The condonation-of-delay applications were invalid when the appeals were initially filed and were time-barred upon their subsequent valid institution; the appeals could not be entertained.

---