CIRP appeals by a corporate debtor are incompetent after limitation, and substitution by amendment cannot cure the defect.

Appeals filed in the name of a corporate debtor after commencement of CIRP were treated as incompetent where they were lodged beyond the limitation period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal stated that such a filing is not a mere curable defect and cannot be regularised later by substituting the suspended director as appellant through amendment. It also noted that the Supreme Court's declaration on the issue is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution, and earlier orders allowing amendments in other matters could not override that binding position. The amendment applications were therefore rejected and the appeals remained not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether appeals filed in the name of the corporate debtor after commencement of CIRP could be permitted to be amended by substituting the suspended director as appellant after expiry of the limitation period, and whether such appeals were maintainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the principle that once CIRP has commenced, an appeal filed in the name of the corporate debtor is not maintainable if the filing is beyond the prescribed period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It held that such an appeal is not a merely defective proceeding capable of later correction by amendment, but an incompetent appeal. The Tribunal also held that the law declared by the Supreme Court on this issue is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and that earlier orders permitting amendments in other matters could not prevail over that binding declaration.

Conclusion: The amendment applications were rightly rejected, and the appeals were not maintainable as they were filed by the corporate debtor after commencement of CIRP and beyond limitation.

---