TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... J. This is an application filed by the appellant praying for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 2. The order impugned dated 06.10.2025 was passed by the adjudicating authority approving the resolution plan of the corporate debtor and the present appeal against the impugned order has been e-filed on 11.12.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is an operational creditor, who was not part of the proceeding in the plan approval application and came to know about the order after he received communication from the Resolution Professional ("RP") on 04.11.2025 by the RP. It is submitted that copy of the order was uploaded only on 28.10.2025 and from calculating the limitation from 28.10.2025, d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute between the parties regarding that order was dictated on 06.10.2025. According to the appellant order was uploaded only on 28.10.2025 and the limitation is to be computed from the said date. 9. We need to consider the submission on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by the Respondent in 'Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association' (supra). In the said case, the company appeal was filed with delay of 15 days and there was also refiling delay of 150 days. The NCLAT Chennai allowed both the applications against which the appeal was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that appellant has not filed the certified copy of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. 10. The present dispute arises over the period of limitation applicable for filing an appeal against an order of NCLT under IBC. The provisions of IBC, the Companies Act, the Limitation Act, the NCLT Rules and the Nclat Rules have been placed before this Court during the hearing. The relevant provisions are extracted below and are referred to, in turn. IBC is a complete code. It has an overriding effect, as stated in Section 238: "238. Provisions of this Code to override other laws.-The provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law."" 11. Learned counsel for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "4. The NCLAT in its impugned order has observed in Para 16 as under: "16. The aforesaid principle will not be applicable under the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the bar of limitation cannot be exempted to be applied for the reasons given hereunder: (a) The Judgment was rendered on 29.07.2024, and was mostly likely uploaded on the same day as the Appellant did not furnish the date of uploading. (b) 30 days period would be expiring on 28.08.2024; (c) He is expected to file the Appeal on or before 28.08.2024, as per Section 61(2) of the I & B Code, 2016, but, he filed the Appeal on 14.09.2024, with a delay of 17 days. (d) The Appellant claims to have got the knowledge of the O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication. 16. Appellant is only an operational creditor, we are of the view that the distinction sought to be raised by the respondent is not relevant. What is relevant is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where explanation as noted in paragraph 4 has been accepted and the delay was condoned. In the present case, there is no dispute that order was uploaded on 28.10.2025. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the order passed in the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 being Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.1828/2025. In Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.1828/2025 on 24.11.2025, following order was passed by this Tribunal: "I.A. No. 7116/2025 This is an application praying for 13 days delay in filing the appeal. ....