Limitation under insolvency law depends on timely certified-copy diligence; later application could not revive an expired period.

Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, limitation runs from the date of the order, and a party seeking exclusion or extension must act diligently in applying for a certified copy within the prescribed time. The Tribunal treated the appellant's participation in the committee of creditors and email communications as sufficient to show knowledge of the proceedings, and held that a later application for the certified copy could not revive a period that had already expired before the Covid-19 suspension period began. Reliance on the Supreme Court's pandemic limitation orders and certified-copy decisions did not assist because the foundational limitation period had already lapsed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the Covid-19 extension of limitation despite applying for the certified copy of the impugned order only on a later date.

Analysis: The limitation under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 runs from the date of the order, and the obligation to seek and file a certified copy within the prescribed time remains relevant for availing the benefit of exclusion or extension of time. The appellant's status as a person aggrieved did not exclude the requirement of diligence. The Tribunal treated the appellant's participation in the committee of creditors and the email communications on record as sufficient to infer knowledge of the proceedings, and held that the later application for certified copy could not revive or extend the period already lapsed before the Covid-19 suspension period commenced. The reliance on the Supreme Court's orders extending limitation during the pandemic, and on the decisions dealing with certified copies and limitation, did not assist the appellant because the foundational limitation period had already expired before the extended period became operative.

Conclusion: The appeal was time-barred, the condonation application was rejected, and the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the extended limitation period.

---