2026 (1) TMI 336 - SCH - IBC

Late-filed insolvency appeal under IBC 2016-132-day delay not condonable, tribunal refusal upheld and appeal dismissed.

The dominant issue was whether an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could be entertained despite being filed 132 days late. The SC ... Condonation of 132 days delay in filing the appeal - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal could not be said to have committed any error while declining to entertain the appeal on the ground that the same was time barred and there was no provision in the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to condone the delay. Appeal dismissed. Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was time-barred and whether the NCLAT erred in refusing to condone delay beyond the fifteen days permitted under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.Analysis: Section 61(2) of the IBC prescribes the outer limit for condonation of delay for filing an appeal. Section 12 of the Limitation Act excludes the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy only if an application for such copy is made within the period of limitation; the period taken by the court to prepare the order before an application for a copy is filed is not excluded. Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules governs filing with a certified copy and Rule 14 permits discretionary waivers but does not nullify the statutory limitation ceiling in the IBC. A suo motu extension of limitation under Article 142 operates subject to the temporal scope specified and does not validate appeals already barred where no timely application for a certified copy was made. In the present facts, no application for a certified copy was filed within the prescribed period, and the statutory limit for condonation under Section 61(2) was exceeded.Conclusion: The appeal was time-barred; the NCLAT correctly refused to condone the delay beyond the statutory fifteen days and rejected the memo of appeal. The dismissal of the appeals is upheld in favour of the respondent.