Limitation under the Insolvency Code runs from pronouncement, and delay beyond the statutory outer limit cannot be condoned.

Limitation for an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date of pronouncement of the impugned order, not from its upload or the appellant's later knowledge. The tribunal held that the statutory period under Section 61(2), including the outer limit of 30 days plus a further 15 days, is fixed and cannot be extended on equitable grounds. An alleged technical glitch in the e-filing portal did not justify condonation beyond that maximum period. The appeal was therefore treated as barred by limitation, and condonation was refused for want of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether limitation for an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 runs from the date of pronouncement of the impugned order or from the date when the order is uploaded or otherwise comes to the appellant's knowledge; (ii) Whether an alleged technical glitch in the e-filing portal can justify condonation of delay when the appeal is filed beyond the maximum condonable period of 30 + 15 days.

Issue (i): Whether limitation for an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 runs from the date of pronouncement of the impugned order or from the date when the order is uploaded or otherwise comes to the appellant's knowledge.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 61(2) links the commencement of limitation to the date of pronouncement of the order. The order was pronounced on 08.12.2025, and the later upload date or the appellant's asserted date of knowledge was held to be irrelevant. The appeal period therefore began to run from the date of pronouncement.

Conclusion: Limitation commenced from the date of pronouncement, not from the date of upload or knowledge, and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether an alleged technical glitch in the e-filing portal can justify condonation of delay when the appeal is filed beyond the maximum condonable period of 30 + 15 days.

Analysis: The appeal was filed after expiry of the 30-day period plus the further 15-day period permitted by the proviso to Section 61(2). The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond that outer limit, and that technical difficulty, equitable grounds, or hardship cannot enlarge a statutorily fixed limitation period. The alleged portal issue was also not accepted on the facts.

Conclusion: The delay beyond the statutory outer limit was not condonable, and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was held to be barred by limitation, and the request for condonation of delay failed for want of jurisdiction under the insolvency statute.

---