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 liable to be rejected. Maintainability was also defeated by absence of the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional on record; an appeal filed in the name of the erstwhile management cannot be considered on merits and is dismissed for failure to amend cause title. Applications by third parties in a disposed matter seeking intervention or directions are not maintainable where claimants failed to comply with prescribed timelines. Successful Resolution Applicants public refund offer with a cut-off governs entitlement to refunds but not late allotment claims.

---

---

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.

---