2026 (1) TMI 1219 - SCH - IBC

Condonation of delay in CIRP appeals: time-barred filings dismissed and absent IRP/RP on record fatal to maintainability.

Condonation of delay was determinative: the maximum condonable delay beyond the prescribed limitation is 15 days, rendering the appeal time-barred and ... Condonation of delay u/s 62 - limitation in filing appeals - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - maintainability of appeal where CIRP has been initiated and proper party not on record - intervention and third-party applications in disposed matters - approval of resolution plan in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - offer of refund by Successful Resolution Applicant - HELD THAT:- Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [“the Code”], prescribes that the condonable delay is a maximum of 15 days beyond the stipulated limitation period of 45 days. Therefore, this appeal, on the face of it, is hopelessly barred by time and is liable to be rejected on this short ground. - Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Maintainability of appeal where CIRP has been initiated and proper party not on record - HELD THAT:- Till date, no steps have been taken by the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional of Jaiprakash Associates Limited to come on record, by amending the cause title of this appeal. The appeal, filed in the name of the erstwhile management of Jaiprakash Associates Limited, therefore, cannot be considered on merits at this stage and is, accordingly, dismissed on this short ground. Approval of resolution plan in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - offer of refund by Successful Resolution Applicant - Effect of the Successful Resolution Applicant's offer to refund on pending appeals and claims - whether or not they had made claims during the CIRP - HELD THAT:- The SRA was asked to make a public announcement to this effect indicating the cut-off date so that all affected home buyers were put on notice as to what was required of them. This Court also made it clear that no further extension of time would be granted and observed that it was for the home buyers to remain vigilant about the steps to be taken by them. While so, several applications for intervention and/or for directions have been filed in the disposed of Civil Appeal, pertaining to Ayush Agarwal and Stic Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Such applications are liable to be rejected, as applications filed by third parties in a disposed of matter are not maintainable. More so, when the applicants therein failed to take appropriate steps to safeguard their own interest within the time prescribed by law and in terms of the timelines in the orders of this Court. The applications are, accordingly, dismissed. Therefore, dismissal of the appeals/applications would not adversely affect any such appellant/applicant, who would come within the scope and timeline of the aforestated offer made by the SRA and would not preclude the SRA from making such refunds. We make it clear that all such home buyers, who submitted their claims after 10.10.2024 but before 05.12.2025, would be entitled only to the refund of the monies paid by them, be it above or below 80% of the demand amount, but they would not be entitled to stake a claim for allotment of a flat/unit at this late stage. All other pending applications shall also stand dismissed. Issues: (i) Whether Civil Appeal Diary No. 59982/2024 is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed for delay; (ii) Whether Civil Appeal Diary No. 15943/2024 filed in the name of Jaiprakash Associates Limited while CIRP is pending without amendment of cause title can be entertained; (iii) Whether pending appeals/applications concerning acceptance of refund by home buyers and related intervention applications should be adjudicated given the offer by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) to refund amounts and the timelines fixed by the Court.Issue (i): Whether the appeal filed with a delay of 242 days is condonable under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and thus maintainable.Analysis: Section 62 prescribes a maximum condonable delay of 15 days beyond the stipulated limitation period of 45 days for filing appeals under the Code. The appeal in question was filed 242 days late, exceeding the statutory maximum condonable period. The Court applied the statutory limitation framework to the facts of the filing delay.Conclusion: The appeal is time-barred and dismissed for delay.Issue (ii): Whether an appeal filed in the name of Jaiprakash Associates Limited represented by its erstwhile management can be entertained after CIRP has been initiated against that company without amendment to bring the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional on record.Analysis: The appellant remained represented by the erstwhile management while CIRP had been initiated against the company; no steps were taken to amend the cause title to reflect the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional. The procedural requirement to have the appropriate corporate representative on record was applied to determine maintainability.Conclusion: The appeal filed in the name of the erstwhile management is not maintainable and is dismissed.Issue (iii): Whether pending appeals and miscellaneous/intervention applications by home buyers should be adjudicated when the SRA has offered refunds within Court-fixed timelines and has published notices setting cut-off dates.Analysis: The SRA made a recorded offer to permit home buyers who complied with the Court-fixed timelines to choose refund or allotment in specified earlier proceedings, and later agreed to refund amounts to certain late claimants within an extended cut-off. The Court considered the published notices, the timeline extensions, and that many applications were filed after earlier disposal; applications by third parties in disposed matters were treated as not maintainable. The Court also specified that claimants who submitted belated claims within the extended cut-off would be entitled only to refunds and not to late allotment claims.Conclusion: Appeals and applications are dismissed as disposed of or not maintainable, subject to the SRA's recorded offer to refund amounts to eligible home buyers who submitted claims within the Court-fixed cut-off; such eligible claimants are entitled only to refunds and not to allotment.Final Conclusion: The Court dismissed the specified appeals and applications on the stated procedural and limitation grounds while recording and enforcing the SRA's offer to refund amounts to qualifying home buyers within the timelines fixed by the Court; the substantive approval of the resolution plan stands affirmed by the dismissal of these challenges.Ratio Decidendi: Appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed beyond the statutory maximum condonable period provided in Section 62 are time-barred and liable to be dismissed; appeals filed in the name of a corporate debtor during CIRP must be prosecuted by the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional to be maintainable.