2026 (4) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e party to the proceedings under Section 60(5) of I & B Code, 2016, to be read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, questions the impugned order that has been passed by the Ld. Tribunal on IA (IBC) / 2026 (CHE) / 2024 that, was preferred in MA No. 554 / 2019 in CP(IB)/193(CHE)/2018. 2. The consequential effect of the same had been that, the Interlocutory Application, which was preferred by the Respondent, it was observed that, the Respondent therein i.e. the present Appellant was unable to substantiate their claim within the stipulated time frame and it was observed that the claim that has been raised by the Appellant, as against the Successful Resolution Applicant since it was after the approval of the Plan was not tenable. 3. The L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant making any attempt to explain the delay of 186 days that has chanced in preferring the Appeal. 8. There is no explanation of any nature whatsoever, giving the reasons for delayed filing of the Company Appeal. Rather, the pleading raised in the application is just contrary to what has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, for the purposes to justify the condonation of delay of 186 days. 9. Thus, it could be concluded by saying that, the Application does not contain any valid reasons, much less a reason whatsoever, which could at all call for a condonation of delay of 186 days. 10. What is more surprising is that, the impugned order was rendered on 30.05.2025. If we see the records and particularly the endorsem....