2025 (12) TMI 1257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the NCLAT Rules 2016 inter alia seeking recall of the order and judgment dated 23.05.2025 passed by this Tribunal. 2. The appeal preferred by the appellant/respondent herein, admittedly was filed beyond the statutory period of 30 days, as prescribed under Section 61(2) of IBC and admittedly no application for condonation of delay was ever listed or allowed by this Tribunal. It is argued by the applicant in the absence of any order condoning the delay, this Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by this Tribunal was ex facie without jurisdiction and non-est in law. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant the respondent/appellant herein had failed to disclose the fact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on 09.02.2023.  The certified copy was applied on 02.03.2023 and it was made available on 06.03.2023. It was submitted if one excludes 5 days spent in obtaining certified copy of impugned order, from the statutory period of 30 days then the delay would only be of 3 days in filing the appeal. It is the case of the Respondent it rather filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the appeal i.e. (without excluding 5 days in obtaining certified copy of the impugned order) and it served the said application alongwith the appeal upon this applicant herein as is evident from the documents annexed at Pages 11-17 of the short reply filed by the Respondent, but the Registry of this Tribuna....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... period of 30 days. Further interestingly we note the applicant never pressed its appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and had rather withdrawn it, hence the judgment dated 23.05.2025 was never set aside. 8. On these facts, we are of the considered view there was a genuine mistaken belief due to inadvertent wrong reporting of the Registry that there was no delay and hence it seems plausible such application for condonation, if filed, could have been removed by the Respondent; coupled with the fact that never any objection qua limitation was ever raised before us, hence we find the delay of 3 days in filing of the appeal, being within the grace period could very well be condoned if such application was on record and no objection was ra....