TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1008
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l)] The Appellant before us is agitating his grievances being aggrieved as against the impugned order of 28.10.2025, that was passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority i.e. The National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai. The implication of the impugned order had been that the intervention petition, being Inv.P/IBC/6/2025 that, was preferred in CP(IB)/124/2023, has been rejected by the Learned Tribunal. 2. In the instant Company Appeal, the registry of this Tribunal had reported vide its report of 19.12.2025, that the Company Appeal suffers from a delay of 16 days. 3. As per the settled principles of law, pertaining to the aspect of limitation, in relation to the Appeals to be preferred under Section 61, no latitude of discretion or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the proviso is normally nomenclatured as to be a condonable period. However owing to a strict restriction imposed by law that the period of limitation cannot under any circumstances be extended beyond 15 days of the condonable period, which has been reiterated time and again by Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been made very clear that under any set of circumstances, the maximum period which can be considered for the purposes of determining the aspect of limitation would be up to the maximum of 45 days, in relation to the Appeals which are preferred under Section 61 of the Code. 5. This Appeal as already observed has been marked by the registry to have been preferred belatedly. In relation thereto, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 658/2025 was filed before this Tribunal on 15.12.2025. d. At the stage when the Company Appeal was filed on 15.12.2025, the Company Appeal was not supported with any Condone Delay Application. e. The supporting Condone Delay Application was preferred only on 20.12.2025, as per the receipt of filing fees. Even the supporting affidavit filed with the Condone Delay Application, has been prepared and signed on 19.12.2025. 7. The issue for consideration at this stage, as raised by the Respondents' Counsel, is that when a Company Appeal, is filed on a date that is beyond the time period prescribed under sub-section 2 of Section 61, without being accompanied with a Condone Delay Application and the delay condonation appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed, which in the instant case would be 20.12.2025 and not 15.12.2025, as argued by the Counsel for the Appellant. And in that eventuality, if we determine the delay knowing the fact that, the Appellant was a contestant to the proceedings, and he had knowledge of the proceedings and order, he had the certified copy of the order issued to him on 15.12.2025, The delay herein would be calculated from the date of the order itself, i.e. 28.10.2025 and if that be so, the period of 30 days would be expiring on 27.11.2025, after excluding the date of passing of the order and if we grant a benefit of the condonable period under the proviso of another 15 days, the same would also be expiring on 12.12.2025. In that eventuality, since the Appeal havi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... particularly he has made a reference to Para 7 in support of his contention. The reference of Para 7 is of no relevance, as first of all it is only dealing with the facts and not a ratio decidendi and more particularly, if we look into the controversy from the aspect of judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 10603/2024 Ashdan Properties Pvt Ltd and Ors. Vs. DSK Global Education And Research Pvt Ltd. and Anr., which too was referred and considered in the matters of V. Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. while dealing with the aspect of limitation, the ratio, which has been laid down therein in Para 10 of Ashdan Properties Pvt Ltd. which is extracted hereunder: 10. The recent three-Judge Bench judgment of this court in A. Rajendra v. Go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. (Resolution Professional) v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 244 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 741], a three-Judge Bench of this Court noted that the significant difference between Section 421(3) of the Companies Act and Section 61(2) IBC is the absence of the words "from the date on which a copy of the order of the Tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved" in the latter. The Court held that limitation commences from the date of pronouncement and not the date of upload of the order or receipt of a certified copy. However, the Court expressly clarified that the time taken to procure the certified copy will be excluded from the calculation of the period of limitation, provided the appellant applies within the prescribed period of ....