TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in IA No. 4999/2025 in CP (IB)1076(ND)/2019. 2. Per I.A. No. 4999/2025 Respondent No. 1, sought for revival of CP (IB)-1076(ND)/2019, and as per the Impugned Order, the Ld. NCLT has directed the revival of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor as it was directed under Order dated 10.10.2019, passed in CP (IB)1076(ND)/2019; appointed a new Interim Resolution Professional; and directed her to invite claims afresh. 3. Without going into the merits of the appeal, we first delve into the issue of maintainability based on its delayed filing. We note that the impugned order dated 21.05.2026, whereby virtue of it the proceedings before the NCLT were directed to be revived, was pronounced and was made available in the public domain on the very same day, i.e., 21.05.2026. Further, a public announcement in respect thereof was also made on 23.05.2026. 4. We note that, through IA 5225 of 2026, the applicant while computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal, has sought to exclude the time which it took for obtaining the certified copy of the order in terms of Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther been negligent nor guilty of any deliberate inaction and besides no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents, if the accompanying Appeal is allowed, whereas refusal to entertain the accompanying Appeal would result in grave and irreparable prejudice and injustice to the Appellant. 10. Vehemently opposing the contentions of the Appellant for treating the appeal to be within limitation, the Respondent claims that all the averments made in the Application under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to be read with Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking exclusion of time in filing the appeal, is absolutely incorrect, and the averments made therein are liable to be rejected. 11. Respondent brings to our notice that the order dated 21.05.2026, whereby the proceedings before the NCLT were directed to be revived, was pronounced and was made available in the public domain on the very same day, i.e., 21.05.2026. Further, a public announcement in respect thereof was also made on 23.05.2026. The contention of the Appellant that the said order was uploaded on the NCLT website only on 02.06.2026 is factually incorrect, as the order had in fact been uploa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... b) It is respectfully submitted that the accompanying Appeal is within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 12 of the Limitation Act read with Section 61 of the IBC. The Applicant had applied for a certified copy of the Impugned Order on 12.06.2026, which has been made available to the Applicant only on 23.07.2026 despite the Applicant's diligent efforts. Therefore, the present Appeal is therefore within limitation." 15. Respondent claims that an Application, which is dated 18.07.2026 could not, by any stretch of imagination, foresee a diligent effort to receive a copy of the order on 23.07.2026. It is stated that this kind of a submission of the Appellant categorically reflects that the Appellant had intentionally not taken steps to delay the receipt of the certified copy from the NCLT and had envisioned that he shall receive the copy on 23.07.2026. It is startling that the Appellant, in an application filed on 18.07.2026, had already "envisioned" that he would receive the certified copy on 23.07.2026. Such an averment clearly reflects the Appellant's conduct in unnecessarily delaying the matter and thereafter seeking exclusion of time on the basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch an Application has to be dismissed at the very threshold. 20. The Respondent contends that the instant Appeal is highly belated, having been filed beyond the statutory period of 45 days of filing the appeal, in view of the fact that the Appeal was preferred on 18.07.2026, whereas, the impugned order is dated 21.05.2026. There is a clear-cut delay of 13 days beyond the extendable period of limitation of 15 days. 21. The Respondent brings to our notice that Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case and, in any event, it cannot be invoked in a manner contrary to the scheme and provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 22. The Respondent further claims that the Appellant is not entitled to the relief sought even on merits. The Appellant, by his own acts and omissions, has contributed to the delay in obtaining the certified copy and has thereafter made incorrect and misleading statements on oath before this Appellate Tribunal. A party cannot be permitted to take advantage of a delay occasioned by its own conduct. Such conduct, in any event, disentitles the Appellant from claiming the relief of ....