TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before Learned NCLT, Kochi Bench, under Section 95 of I&B Code, to be read with Rule 7 (2) of I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to the Corporate Debtors), Rules, 2019, which has resulted into admission of the Appellant / Personal Guarantor to face the Insolvency Resolution Process (IRP). 3. Similarly, the connected Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 18/2026, has too been preferred by the Appellant / Personal Guarantor, challenging the order that was rendered in CP(IB)/49/KOB/2024, resulting into admission of the Appellant, to face the Insolvency Resolution Process. 4. These two Company Appeals are accompanied by respective Condone Delay Applications. In Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 17/2026, the Appellant has filed the Condone Delay Application being IA No.47/2026, seeking condonation of 15 days of delay in filing the Appeal, as against the impugned order of 27.05.2025. The ground, which has been taken by the Appellant for seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal was that, the order of 27.05.2025 was uploaded on 28.05.2025, and as no free copy of the order was made available to the Appellant, he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts filed Writ Petition being WP (C) 25018/2025 and WP (C) 25071/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala on 06.07.2025, that is, the 40th day, from the date of pronouncement of the Impugned Order. The said writ petitions were decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala on 05.11.2025, directing them to file appeals before this Appellate Tribunal. Thus the period spent by the petitioners for prosecuting these writ petitions starting from 06.07.2025 to 05.11.2025 adds up to 122 days. 8. The questions that arises for consideration before us, are that: i) Whether the period of 122 days spent in prosecuting the writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala can be excluded for computation of limitation? ii) Whether the Hon'ble High Court could have passed a direction for this Appellate Tribunal, that the period spent before the High Court "should be excluded" for computing the limitation period for preferring the Appeal, even while declining to interfere with the impugned orders on the grounds that there is an effective alternative remedy available under I&B Code? 9. It is to be noted that resolution of insolvency under the Code is a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the proceedings, which was otherwise not maintainable before it, being governed by a special statute as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. as reported in 2024 Vol 1 SCR Page 517. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when the proceedings are held to be not maintainable, the High Court could not have passed an order, which provides any positive benefits or directions, which would be amounting to be an interference or overriding the proceedings of an Appeal, which otherwise would be the subject matter to be considered by this Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, for all practical purposes when the Hon'ble High Court has observed that the writ petition is not maintainable and has declined to interfere on the same count, it becomes functus officio. Once the maintainability question has been decided by the High Court, on the basis of availability of an appellate remedy before the NCLAT under Section 61 itself, the High Court should not have passed an order, directing this Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay, since the Appellate Tribunals created under Section 410 of Companie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he similar question with regards to the scope of interference by the High Court under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and it framed a question as to whether the High Court could interfere and pass an order in any of the proceedings under the I&B Code, where there is an available statutory remedy of filing of an appeal, before the NCLAT. The said question has been answered in Para 46, of the judgment where it has been enunciated in very clear terms that writ jurisdiction would be maintainable only in those cases where NCLT chooses to exercise a jurisdiction not vested in it in law. The said paragraph is extracted here under: 46. Therefore, in fine, our answer to the first question would be that NCLT did not have jurisdiction to entertain an application against the Government of Karnataka for a direction to execute supplemental lease deeds for the extension of the mining lease. Since NCLT chose to exercise a jurisdiction not vested in it in law, the High Court of Karnataka was justified in entertaining the writ petition, on the basis that NCLT was coram non judice. 13. We in the matters of Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tracks & Towers Infratec....