AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1524
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Company Appeal No. 330 of 2026 has been e-filed by the Appellant before this Tribunal challenging the impugned order. The appeal is accompanied with I.A. No. 1245 of 2026 which is an application praying for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. The prayers contained in the said application read as follows: "a. Pass an Order condoning the delay of 14 days in filing the present Appeal against the Impugned Order dated 08.12.2025 passed in I.A. No. 2168 of 2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 1068/MB/2023 by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-III; b. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 3. In terms of the statutory provision of IBC, the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the IBC is 30 days, which period is further extendable by 15 days subject to the Tribunal being satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the 30 days permissible period of limitation. Section 61(2) is extracted below: "61. Appeals and Appellate Authority. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 22.01.2026. Thereafter, the Appellant attempted to file the appeal on subsequent days but could not do so because of the e filing portal being unresponsive whenever the Appellant attempted to file it. By way of abundant caution, the Appellant emailed a complete copy of paper book on the email ID [email protected] on 22.01.2026 itself. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that any delay that has occurred in filing of the accompanying appeal beyond 22.01.2026 is solely due to factors and circumstances not within the Appellant's control." 7. Reliance has been placed by the Applicant on judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in M/s Shivpad Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Anr. in W.P. No. 26655 of 2024 to contend that procedural and technical obstacles on the part of the judicial system cannot defeat the substantive rights of a litigant. It was further urged that the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e. an act of court shall prejudice no man squarely applies to the present case since the Applicant cannot be made to suffer for the alleged non-functioning of the e-filing portal of this Tribunal. The Applicant further contended that though the Regist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the Applicant was using the technical glitch ground as a ploy to circumvent the delay on their part in filing of the instant appeal and that even assuming without admitting that the portal was non-functional on 22.01.2026, the Applicant had admittedly waited till the last date of expiry of the condonable period for attempting to file the appeal which in itself reflected negligent and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the Applicant. It was additionally contended that the alleged email to the Registry was sent only at 10:36 PM on 22.01.2026 which email could not substitute the requirement of e-filing in terms of NCLAT Circular No. 071/ 2025 and hence the same cannot be treated as a valid justification for construing 22.01.2026 as the date of filing of the appeal. It was submitted that despite claiming that the appeal paper book was completely ready on 22.01.2026, the Applicant eventually e-filed the appeal only on 28.01.2026 after a further delay of six days which clearly demonstrates absence of due diligence on the part of the Applicant. 10. We have heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record carefully. 11. The short point which arise for cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Ors. in (2022) 2 SCC 244 that limitation for filing an appeal commences on the day when order is pronounced and the question when the Appellant came to know about the order is of no relevance. In para 33 of the above judgment, following has been laid down: "33. The answer to the two issues set out in Section C of the judgment-(i) when will the clock for calculating the limitation period run for proceedings under IBC; and (ii) is the annexation of a certified copy mandatory for an appeal to NCLAT against an order passed under IBC must be based on a harmonious interpretation of the applicable legal regime, given that IBC is a Code in itself and has overriding effect. Sections 61(1) and (2) IBC consciously omit the requirement of limitation being computed from when the "order is made available to the aggrieved party", in contradistinction to Section 421(3) of the Companies Act...." It is therefore amply clear that question as to when the Applicant came to know about the order is inconsequential and cannot be a good ground for arresting the running of limitation from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal on 22.01.2026 and also to indicate whether any e-filings had been successfully carried out on the said date. The relevant portion of NIC's report on the query raised by NCLAT Registry as reported by this Registry is as under: "6. Further, in this regard, the National Informatics Centre (NIC) has sent a reply email dated 21.04.2026 (Flag 'C'), stating therein "The E-filing portal was functional on 22.01.2026 as we checked from cases filed on this date." Furthermore, they have attached a list of cases in the Excel sheet filed on the mentioned date (Flag - 'D'). In the list, 70 filings were done on 22.01.2026." (Emphasis Supplied) 18. The NIC in its reply dated 21.04.2026 has categorically stated that the filing portal was functional on 22.01.2026 and further informed that around 70 filings had been done on the said date. When other litigants could have successfully e-filed their appeals on 22.01.2026 and no complaint has been received in this regard from others, we are not persuaded by the present Applicant as a lone-ranger using this ground to justify delay in e-filing beyond the condonable period. It is also confirmed by NIC in its report that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that limit. In other words, the NCLAT being a creature of statute, operates strictly within the powers conferred upon it. Unlike a civil suit, it lacks inherent jurisdiction to extend time on equitable grounds. 11.1. Once the prescribed and condonable periods (i.e., 30 + 15 days) expire, the NCLAT has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals, regardless of the reason for the delay. In Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, while interpreting Section 9 IBC, this Court underscores the IBC's strict procedural discipline i.e., only applications strictly conforming to statutory requirements can be entertained. This principle is also applicable to limitation issues under section 61(2), as it supports the idea that tribunals must operate within the bounds of the Code, without adding equitable or discretionary powers not conferred by statute. This Court in Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited & Another has categorically held that the NCLAT cannot condone any delay beyond 15 days even on equitable grounds; and that the appellate mechanism under IBC is strictly time-bound by design to preserve the speed and certainty of the insolvency....