2026 (3) TMI 96 - AT - IBC

Limitation commencement from court pronouncement: appeal time runs from pronouncement, so delay beyond condonable period barred.

The article addresses whether limitation for an appeal against an NCLT order begins on the date of pronouncement in open court or on the date the order is ... Limitation period - pronouncement of order - uploading of order on tribunal portal - condonation of delay - limitation under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - exclusion of time for obtaining certified copy under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act - due diligence in applying for certified copyLimitation period - pronouncement of order - uploading of order on tribunal portal - limitation under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Commencement of limitation for filing appeal against the NCLT order dated 11.06.2025. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal determined that the determinative event for commencement of limitation is the pronouncement of the order in open court. The Appellant admitted that the order dated 11.06.2025 was pronounced in open court and that the Resolution Professional was represented by counsel during the hearing; the minutes of the CoC and the Appellant's rejoinder both record arguments and the Bench's directions, demonstrating pronouncement on 11.06.2025. Reliance on authorities establishing that limitation may commence from the date of uploading applies only where no substantive order was pronounced at the hearing. Where an order is pronounced in open court, the period of limitation runs from that date (excluding the day of pronouncement), and the mere fact of later upload (04.07.2025) does not defer commencement. The Tribunal applied the reasoning of the cited Supreme Court precedents to hold that the Appellant's contention that limitation should begin on upload was untenable in the face of pronouncement in open court. [Paras 9, 11, 12, 13]Limitation for filing the appeal commenced from pronouncement of the order on 11.06.2025 (with 11.06.2025 excluded in computation), and not from the date of upload.Condonation of delay - exclusion of time for obtaining certified copy under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act - due diligence in applying for certified copy - Whether the delay in filing the appeal was within the condonable period and whether condonation should be granted. - HELD THAT: - Having fixed commencement of limitation from 11.06.2025, the Tribunal computed the period and found the appeal filed on 28.08.2025 to be beyond the statutory 30 days plus the maximum condonable 15 days. The Appellant's argument that time spent between applying for and receiving the certified copy (28.07.2025 to 08.08.2025) should be excluded could not rescue the appeal because the primary premise that limitation began on upload was rejected. The Tribunal followed the principle that a party aggrieved by an NCLT order pronounced in open court must exercise due diligence, including timely application for certified copy; where the appeal is filed beyond the maximum permissible period under Section 61(2) IBC (30 days plus up to 15 days condonation), the delay cannot be condoned. [Paras 8, 22]Application for condonation of delay rejected; appeal (Memo of Appeal) dismissed as barred by limitation.Final Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay is refused; the appeal filed on 28.08.2025 is time barred as limitation began from pronouncement on 11.06.2025 and the delay exceeds the permissible condonable period, consequently the Memo of Appeal is rejected. Issues: (i) Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal against the NCLT order dated 11.06.2025 commences from the date of pronouncement in open court (11.06.2025) or from the date of uploading the order on the NCLT portal (04.07.2025).Analysis: The material shows the NCLT pronounced the order on 11.06.2025 in the presence of the appellant and its counsel, and this fact is admitted by the appellant in the rejoinder and reflected in CoC records. Binding precedents distinguish cases where no substantive order was pronounced (limitation may commence on uploading) from cases where the order was pronounced in open court (limitation commences from pronouncement). The applicable legal framework includes Sections 61(1) and 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 permitting exclusion for time to obtain a certified copy if an application for it is filed within the limitation period; Rules governing pronouncement and cause-lists under the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 (including Rule 89, Rule 150 and Rule 151), and the obligation of an aggrieved party to exercise due diligence and apply for a certified copy upon pronouncement. The appellant did not plead in the original condonation application that limitation should start from the upload date, and the admitted fact of pronouncement on 11.06.2025 triggers running of limitation from that date, excluding the day of pronouncement. The appeal was filed on 28.08.2025 and, computed from 11.06.2025, exceeds the statutory period of 30 days plus the maximum condonable period of 15 days; the delay therefore falls beyond the permissible limit even after excluding any time properly excluded under Section 12(2) where applicable.Conclusion: The limitation period for filing the appeal commenced from the date of pronouncement, 11.06.2025, and the delay in filing the appeal is beyond the condonable period; the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the Memorandum of Appeal is rejected.