TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1895
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord our findings on the same. 3. As per the Appellant' counsel, he contends the following: - (i) The common impugned order under challenge for both the company appeals is that of 31.10.2025. (ii) The Appellant admittedly applied for the certified copy of the impugned order on 07.11.2025, which was made available by the Registry of the Ld. NCLT on 10.11.2025 and was issued to the Appellant on 18.11.2025. (iii) The Appellant filed the respective Appeals on 14.12.2025, on the 44th day from 31.10.2025, which is the date of pronouncement of the impugned order. (iv) After accounting for the time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the order which as per the Appellant, is 12 days (07.11.2025 to 18.11.2025), the delay in filing the respective appeals is only of 2 days which may be condoned. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondents objects to the same, contending that the delay should not be condoned as the respective appeals were not filed on 14.12.2025 and were filed at a much later date and that the documents which were filed on 14.12.2025 will not qualify to be Appeal documents in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22 of NCLAT Rules. Thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Counsel for the Respondent, contending thereof that, neither 14.12.2025 nor 11.01.2026 cannot be taken as to be the date of filing the condone delay application for the reason being that, according to the records supplied by the Appellant himself along with the memorandum of appeal, the date of payment of fees in the Bharatkosh Portal is shown to be 02.03.2026 and therefore, even though the Appellant claims to have filed a condone delay application along with the appeal on 14.12.2025, it cannot be considered to be a duly instituted condone delay application as on 14.12.2025 as per the provisions of Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has further argued that since the fee was paid on 02.03.2026 in accordance with the records of the Appellant itself, the condone delay application would be deemed to have been actually preferred on 02.03.2026 which is beyond the period of limitation including the condonable period prescribed under Section 61(2) of the I & B Code, 2016 and in such a case, the delay cannot be condoned. He has further stated that in case we accept the contention of the Appellant that the condone delay application was filed along with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.01.2019. The appellant claims that it was subsequently discovered that an incorrect file had been electronically uploaded on 23.01.2019. The file that was uploaded related to a case captioned "Reliance Infrastructure v. Aravali Power Co. Pvt. Ltd.". Thus, it is not in dispute that the said filing cannot be considered as filing of an application under 2023/DHC/000135 Section 34 of the A&C Act, assailing the impugned award. Admittedly, no such application was filed on 23.01.2019. ... ... ... ... ... ... 37. It is, thus, necessary to bear in mind the distinction between the procedural requirements that can be cured and those defects that are so fundamental that the application cannot be considered as an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act, at all. 38. ... ... ... 39. ... ... ... 40. It is relevant to note that the affidavits accompanying the application filed on 20.02.2019 were signed but not attested and to that extent, the defects as pointed out are not accurate. It is clear from the above, that none of the defects are fundamental as to render the application as non-est in the eyes of law. All the defects, as pointed ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of delay. The satisfaction has to be of the Appellate Tribunal and that too on justifiable grounds, which, as is apparent, from the perusal of the application there is none pleaded which can be said to be projecting sufficient cause for not approaching the Appellate Tribunal within the time stipulated under Section 61(2) of the IBC. 29. The other reasons as has been assigned by the Appellate Tribunal for rejecting the application for condonation is clearly borne out from the pleading and the facts which do not call for any interference in the present appeals." 14. Though, the issue involved therein, which had been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in its judgment rendered on 04.04.2025, may not directly relate to the issue under consideration in the instant company appeal, the aforesaid judgement very categorically states that appeals filed under section 61(2) of I&B Code will have to strictly conform to the provisions of Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. In the instant case, the condone delay application has allegedly been filed without payment of requisite fees which has been paid later and hence the said application as on 14.12.2025 cannot be held to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s preferred on 14.12.2025, and the accompanying condone delay application was not supported by payment of requisite fees which was paid only on 11.01.2026. Because, the requisite fees were paid only on 11.01.2026, there was no validly instituted condone delay application as on 14.12.2025 and the condone delay application which has been filed, will be deemed to have come into existence from 11.01.2026 only. Thus, it cannot be taken up for consideration in view of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs and has to be necessarily rejected as being barred by limitation. Hence, this company appeal too was barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016. 18. Summarizing the discussions as above, we hold that as per the ratio propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 12 of the said judgment of Ashdan Properties (supra), where it lays down the modalities to be strictly followed for the purposes of filing of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, institution of an appeal means a valid institution of appeal, and this will include within itself payment of the requisite fees prescribed for filing the appeal and th....