2025 (8) TMI 1077 - SCH - IBC

Appeal time-barred; limitation cannot be extended under Section 62 IBC; prior hypothecation defeats later transfer claim

SATURN VENTURES AND ADVISORS PVT. LTD. ETC. Versus S. GOPALAKRISHNAN

The SC held the appeal inadmissible as time-barred and dismissed it, stating the Court cannot extend the limitation under Section 62 of the IBC even by ... Maintainability of appeal - extension of limitation prescribed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, even by one day - Ownership of machinery in the context of insolvency proceedings - It is alleged that the machinery was given on lease to the CD and since it was only a transfer of interest, therefore, it does not amount to transfer of ownership - it was held by NCLAT that 'It is pertinent to mention that CD had already executed hypothecation cum loan agreement on 06.06.2014 with the FC whereby the machinery alongwith other machines were hypothecated. The FC had created charge over machinery much prior to the hypothecation in favour of IndusInd Bank by the Appellant which is otherwise not permissible much less without making intimation or taking approval from the FC because such hypothecation was clearly bad in law.' HELD THAT:- This appeal is barred by time as it is not permissible for this Court to extend the limitation prescribed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, even by one day. Appeal dismissed. The appeal was dismissed as time-barred. The court held that it is 'not permissible for this Court to extend the limitation prescribed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, even by one day.' The sole legal reasoning rests on the non-extendability of the limitation period under Section 62 IBC, leaving no scope for condonation of delay or extension of limitation to entertain the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on that short ground without consideration of merits.