TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atap Singh, Adv., Mr. Shubham Jaiswal, Adv., M/s Lawfic, AOR. JUDGMENT PER DIPANKAR DATTA, J. 1. This appeal, carried from the order dated 21st May, 2026, of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi [NCLAT], has been belatedly presented beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 45 (forty-five) days but within the condonable limit of 15 (fifteen) days. 2. Cause shown in the application for condonation of delay is sufficient. 3. Delay is condoned; I.A. 247919 stands allowed. 4. Appellant in this appeal was also the appellant before the NCLAT. No opposing counsel defeated the appellant. Rather, failed 'one-time password' (OTP) deliveries ensured that the appellant was shown the door, thereby sealing it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....either. Finally, on 30th January, 2026, the appeal came to be e-filed. Given that such circumstances were beyond its control, the appellant prayed that the application for condonation of delay be allowed. 7. However, much to the appellant's misfortune, the NCLAT vide the impugned order dated 21st May, 2026 rejected its application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the appeal stood dismissed as time-barred. The NCLAT observed that the NCLT's order approving Ashdan's resolution plan was pronounced on 15th December, 2025. The statutory period for filing an appeal within 30 (thirty) days under Section 61(2) of the IBC came to an end on 14th January, 2026, since limitation begins to run from the date of pronouncement of the order. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tata Steel Ltd. (supra) was a decision dealing with a situation where a minority shareholder had, owing to his own incorrect understanding of the law of limitation, belatedly filed an appeal before the NCLAT challenging an order of the relevant NCLT approving the resolution plan. These are decisions, which are authorities for the points which emerged for decisions therein and were decided accordingly. 11. At this stage, we may profitably refer to Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey (1976) 3 SCC 334 where it has authoritatively been ruled by a 3-Judge Bench that: 7. ... It is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion bas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y's own report dated 6th May, 2026, which was submitted to the NCLAT pursuant to its order dated 29th April, 2026. 15. What can be gathered from the NCLAT Registry's report is that, the appellant had undertaken the requisite efforts to e-file the appeal starting from 28th January, 2026; still, due to technical issues with OTP delivery, the appeal could not be e-filed until 30th January, 2026. 16. In the current age, as the judiciary becomes increasingly digitised, scrutinising any delay due to technical difficulties beyond the litigant's control is all the more relevant. 17. Though Section 61(2) of the IBC does not provide discretionary power to the NCLAT to condone any delay beyond the maximum 45 (forty-five) day period stipulated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may exempt the period for which the e-filing system was non-functional from the period of limitation and to hold that the appeal, in the eye of law, was presented within the 45 (forty-five) day outer limit. 20. No decision of this Court has been brought to our notice which bars a court/tribunal from granting such an exemption from the laws of limitation. Though the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may not be applicable to proceedings under the IBC, principles flowing from Order VII Rule 6 thereof can certainly be invoked in an appropriate case. Acknowledging that it is a system failure at its end, which requires correction, and to direct that the appeal be registered as filed within the outer condonable period of limitation by treating the....