AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....two Company Appeals wherein the prayer has been made by the Appellant for condonation of 14 days of delay that has chanced in preferring the Company Appeals. 2. The precise facts for consideration are that; The Appellant in the instant Company Appeal being Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 54 / 2026, happens to be an unsecured Financial Creditor / Home Buyer of the Corporate Debtor i.e. M/s. Lokaa Developer Pvt. Ltd., whose claim is in relation to Flat No. 2001 as located in "M1" Project was admitted. But, since the flat was double booked and under the approved Resolution Plan, he was denied any flat or a definite payout and was restrictively left confined only to certain speculative, contingent and uncertain recoveries from the avoidance transactions, which happens to be in distinction to other 192 similarly placed home buyers who had received their flats. The Appellant contended that, he had initially voted for the Plan on the basis of incomplete information, but later, withdrew the support, and now he challenges the Impugned Order of 28.10.2025. 3. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority by virtue of the impugned order of 28.10.2025 as passed in IA (IBC) / Plan / 11 (CHE) / 202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... belatedly, i.e. beyond the prescribed maximum period of 45 days (i.e., the actual period of limitation of 30 days and the 15 days condonable period as prescribed under law), from the date of the pronouncement of the order. He contended that the delay becomes material since the Appellant happens to be the member of the Committee of Creditors, and he was fully aware of the proceedings of the CIRP. Besides, since the Appellant had 0.11% voting share and had not dissented against the Plan by voting against the same, he may not have any logic or reasons to belatedly prefer the Appeal against the approval of the Plan. 7. The Respondent's Counsel submits that, the order was pronounced in the Open Court by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on 28.10.2025. Hence, the limitation has to be construed from the date of the pronouncement, and the date of uploading of the impugned order becomes irrelevant. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid objection, he contends that, if 30 days period is construed from the date of the pronouncement of the order, it would be ending on 27.11.2025 and since the Appellant has not made any efforts for procuring the Certified copy of the order and even the Appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication for seeking exemption from filing the Certified copy of the order. 11. The said application for exemption being IA No. 136 / 2026 does not contain any pleading to the effect that the Appellant had ever, even after getting the knowledge of the order of the proceedings in which he was participating as one of the members of the CoC, had ever applied for obtaining the Certified copy. Hence, the ground taken in the Condone Delay Application that, there was delay in procuring Certified copy of the order itself is not sustainable. 12. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has further contended that because of the aforesaid facts and in the light of the restrictions imposed by the provisions contained under sub-section (2) of Section 61 i.e. the Appellate provision, the delay in filing the Appeal cannot be condoned. For the purposes of convenience, sub- section (2) of Section 61 of I & B Code, 2016, is extracted hereunder: "(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The limitation thus, starts from the date of pronouncement of the Order and not from the date the Order is made available to the parties. 20. Mandate of Rule 22(2) of NCLAT Rules has to be complied with which requires certified copy to be annexed along with appeal which binds a litigant under the IBC. The appellant having failed to apply for certified copy renders appeal filed before the NCLAT as clearly barred by limitation. 21. This Court in Cethar Limited (Resolution Professional) Vs. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. (2002) 2 SCC 244 held that the appellant did not even attempt to secure a certified copy and only relied on the date of uploading the Order on the website that is 12.03.2020 whereas the pronouncement in open Court was on 31.12.2019 and that too in the presence of the appellant before NCLT. This Court denied the benefit of condonation of delay on account of absence of any effort on the part of the appellant within the statutory period of limitation to obtain the certified copy of the impugned Order therein." 14. Based on the aforesaid ratio, the Ld. Counsel for Respondent summarised his objection from the following perspective. (a) The Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of a non-pronouncement of the order when the hearing concludes, from the date of uploading of the order on the website. Relevant Para 10 of the Judgment of Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is extracted hereunder:- "10. The recent three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in A Rajendra vs. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao and others (2025 INSC 447) affirmed this legal position. Copious reference was made by the Bench to the earlier decision in V Nagarajan (supra) and other case laws and it was observed that the incident which triggers limitation to commence is the date of pronouncement of the order and in a case of non-pronouncement of the order when the hearing concludes, the date on which the order is pronounced or uploaded on the website. It was pointed out that when the judgment is pronounced in open Court, the period of limitation would start running from that very day and an appellant would be entitled to seek relief under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, to exclude the period during which a certified copy was under preparation, if an application was made therefor within the period of limitation." 17. Thus, the issue has now been fully settled by preceden....