TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench at New Delhi [NCLAT] in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2316 of 2024. 2. Having regard to the point on which we propose to decide the appeal, we see no reason to comment on the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order. 3. The appeal was presented on 29th January 2026, beyond the period of limitation prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 62, IBC but within the grace period stipulated in sub-section (2) thereof. Office reported a delay of 7 (seven) days in filing the appeal. An application seeking condonation of the said delay has been filed. Office had also marked the appeal defective. Upon curing the defects, the appeal came to be re-filed after a further delay of 82 (eighty-two) days for which a separate application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing has also been filed. 4. At the outset, it must be borne in mind that the scheme of limitation under the IBC is a strict and time-bound one. The concept of condonation of delay itself is alien to the statutory framework beyond the period expressly contemplated under the statute. Section 62 of the IBC permits an appeal to be filed before this Court within 45 (forty-five) days, with a further grace period of only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the civil appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation. 3. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 9. In Saturn Ventures and Advisors Pvt. Limited v. S. Gopalakrishnan 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2484, delay of two days in presentation of an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC was not condoned reasoning that the Court has no power to condone the delay. 10. Let us now ascertain what the position is under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 [SCR]. Sub-rules (3) and (4), of Rule 6 of Order VIII, SCR, lay down the regime governing re-filing of, inter alia, petitions and appeals after curing defects. A period of 28 (twenty-eight) days is earmarked for curing of defects. A litigant not curing the defects within 28 (twenty-eight) days may re-file the petition or the appeal, as the case may be, together with an application seeking condonation of re-filing delay. Needless to observe, condonation of re-filing delay for petitions and appeals is discretionary. 11. Is it open to this Court [where an appeal under Section 62, IBC is filed within time, i.e., 45 (forty-five) days or beyond the said period but before expiry of 60 (sixty) days as contemplated in the sub-sections thereo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma [(2008) 8 SCC 321; 2008 SCC OnLine SC 1049.] 10. Having regard to the fact that the appellant despite limitations had done all that was necessary for filing of the appeal within 30 days, and then 15 days, i.e., within the prescribed and extended period of limitation, respectively, as well as dependency of the appellant on its lawyers who, in turn, were dependent on their clerk to refile the appeal, and there were some missteps contributing to the present situation, coupled with the fact that the issue sought to be raised by the appellant in the appeal filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, if answered in its favour, would enure to the benefit of the debtors, and also that better justice is always achieved when a lis is decided on a contested hearing rather than on default, we need to take an overall view of the matter. We are of the considered opinion that the words "sufficient cause" in this case ought to have been construed liberally and that interest of justice would be best served if, upon condonation of delay in refilling of the appeal, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal proceeds with the hea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause' which is and should be decisive, irrespective of the length of time taken to cure the defects, is equally unimpressive. The SCR is the subordinate legislation in the field and whenever the IBC and the SCR clash, the latter cannot override the express provisions of the former. The IBC must prevail being the statutory edict. Though indisputable that the standards for examining a prayer for condoning a re-filing delay is certainly less rigorous than a filing delay but such standard would stand true and be applicable for the general laws, like proceedings arising from the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure, as well as from remedies provided by the Constitution of India. Section 62, IBC is, however, a complete code in itself for filing of appeals and is different from other laws. An appeal under Section 62, IBC does not remain alive after the 28 (twenty-eight) day period allowable under the SCR for curing defects and the lis would stand frozen once the defects are not cured within such period. An extended window cannot be granted de hors the legislative intent behind stipulation of the strict timelines in the IBC. 19. We may also observe that the fact of the appellant being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pertinent to mention that this officer has since left the position, leading to a gap in communication. The delay, thus, was neither intentional nor negligent but arose from a bona fide administrative lapse within the office. (emphasis ours) 22. The circumstance that this Court had earlier interdicted refusal of the NCLAT to condone the delay in re-filing the appeal under Section 61 of the IBC does not advance the appellant's case, rather even on a cursory comparison of the two situations, it only accentuates the reason as to why the earlier exercise of discretion cannot be extended to the present proceedings. While setting aside the order of the NCLAT, this Court had emphasized the differing degrees of liberality, which ought to be extended in the cases of lapses attributable to the advocate-on-record and to the litigant, as far as re-filing delay is concerned. It was in this factual milieu, the controversy warranted examination on merits, thereby necessitating the condonation of delay in re-filing of the appeal before the NCLAT and restoration of the appeal before it. 23. The decision in CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary (supra) reiterates the principle which must g....