NCLAT rejects appeal for 16-day delay despite timely filing from knowledge date under Section 61(2) IB Code

NCLAT dismissed the appeal filed by a non-party appellant seeking condonation of 16 days delay. Although appellant gained knowledge of the impugned order on 19.08.2024 and filed appeal on 14.09.2024 (within knowledge-based timeline), the appeal exceeded the 45-day prescribed period from judgment pronouncement date under Section 61(2) proviso of IB Code, 2016. Despite appellant's exemption application for certified copy filing, NCLAT held that failure to apply for certified copy within 30 days from knowledge date (applied only on 08.10.2024) was fatal. Appeal rejected on limitation grounds.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Impugned Order dated 29.07.2024 by Secured Financial Creditor. Condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant, a Secured Financial Creditor, filed an Appeal challenging the Impugned Order directing him to tender an amount to the Liquidation Account and reimburse costs for asset preservation. The Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP proceedings, leading to liquidation. The Liquidator sought to distribute surplus from unsold assets among stakeholders, prompting the Impugned Order.

2. The Appellant filed a Condone Delay Application due to a 16-day delay in filing the Appeal. He argued that the delay was reasonable as he only learned of the Impugned Order on 19.08.2024 and promptly filed the Appeal on 14.09.2024, within the prescribed period under the I & B Code, 2016.

3. The Appellant contended that his lack of involvement in the proceedings until he learned of the Order justifies condonation, especially as he sought exemption from filing a Certified copy of the Order. He cited the latitude provided under Section 61 and Rule 31 of NCLAT Rules, 2016.

4. The Respondent argued that knowledge alone should not justify condonation if the Certified copy is not filed within the limitation period. Citing a previous judgment, the Respondent emphasized the importance of timely filing, regardless of knowledge.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the timelines and actions of the parties. It noted the Appellant's delayed application for the Certified copy and deemed the Appeal filed beyond the prescribed 45-day limit from the date of the Judgment, leading to rejection based on limitation grounds.

6. Considering precedents and the specifics of the case, the Tribunal rejected the Condone Delay Application, citing the delay in filing the Appeal beyond the permissible limit. The Appeal was dismissed, and related Interlocutory Applications were closed, emphasizing the importance of compliance with limitation periods in legal proceedings.

---