2026 (3) TMI 1537 - AT - IBC

Limitation under insolvency law: Section 4 cannot extend the separate 15-day condonable appeal period.

Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to the prescribed limitation period and does not extend the separate 15-day condonable period under ... Maintainability of the Company Appeal - Condonation of delay - Limitation for appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - statutory period of limitation of 30 days for filing of Appeal against orders of Ld. Adjudicating Authority - barred by limitation - Certified copy requirement - prescribed limitation period - Scope of section 4 of the Limitation Act. Limitation - Prescribed period - Condonable period - Certified copy - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Apex Court in Tata Steel V. Raj Kumar Banerjee [2025 (5) TMI 661 - SUPREME COURT] has explained as to how would the term “prescribed period” of limitation, as defined under Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act, 1963, is to be considered in the context of provisions contained under Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides for the extension of the limitation period till re-opening of the Court, if the prescribed period of limitation expires on a day when the Court is closed. In Para 10.1, it has been held that the prescribed period under Section 4 of the Limitation Act, will have to be read with Section 2(j) which defines the “period of limitation”, and the “prescribed period”, and that the benefit of limitation under Section 4 of Limitation Act, 1963, will only be available to the period of limitation as contemplated under the statute, and not to the period which may be granted at the discretion of the Court. Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically laid down that the “prescribed period” and “condonable period” are 30 days and 15 days respectively under Section 61(2) of I & B Code, 2016, and the Tribunals, must operate within the bounds of the Code, in the light of the Judgment of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited V. Kirusa Software Private Limited [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] The Appellate Tribunal held that under section 61(2) of the Code, the prescribed period for filing an appeal is 30 days and the further period of 15 days is only a condonable period available in the Tribunal's discretion, and not part of the period of limitation. Consequently, section 4 of the Limitation Act can extend time only where the prescribed 30-day period expires during court closure, and not where only the condonable period overlaps with vacation. On the dates recorded in the order, the prescribed period had expired before commencement of vacation and the appeal was e-filed on the 46th day. The Tribunal further noted that no date of application for a certified copy had been disclosed and, in fact, no certified copy had been applied for, so no exclusion of time could be claimed on that basis. Hence, the appeal was beyond the outer limit of 30 days plus 15 days and was not maintainable. [Paras 15, 16, 17] The delay could not be condoned beyond the statutory outer limit, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. Final Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal held that the appeal had been filed beyond the maximum period permissible under section 61(2) of the Code. As the prescribed 30-day limitation had expired before the vacation began, section 4 of the Limitation Act afforded no benefit, and the appeal along with pending applications was dismissed. Issues: Whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could extend the condonable period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.Analysis: The limitation under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 runs for 30 days from the date of pronouncement, with a further discretionary period of 15 days available only on sufficient cause. The Court applied the distinction between the 'prescribed period' and the condonable period and held that Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 operates only when the prescribed period expires on a day when the court is closed. Relying on the Supreme Court's exposition, the Court held that the additional 15-day period is not part of the prescribed period and therefore cannot be enlarged by court vacation. The appeal had been filed after expiry of the 30-day period and beyond the outer 15-day condonable period, and no basis was shown for extending limitation by Section 4. The absence of any disclosed application for a certified copy did not save the appeal from limitation.Conclusion: The appeal was held to be time-barred and the request for condonation beyond the statutory limit was rejected.Ratio Decidendi: Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to the prescribed limitation period and cannot extend the separate, discretionary condonable period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.