Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Nalimela Jagadeeshwar Reddy, filed a Company Appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, challenging an order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad in IA (Dis.) IBC No. 2/54/HDB/2025 in CP (IB) No. 14/7/HDB/2020. The appellant admitted that he applied for a certified copy of the impugned order on 15.04.2025, which was beyond the prescribed limitation period of 30 days under Section 61(2) of the I&B Code. Furthermore, the appeal was e-filed on 11.04.2025, even before obtaining the certified copy. The appellant sought condonation of delay on the ground that he was not a party to the proceedings before the NCLT and therefore had no knowledge of the order. The NCLAT, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member), held that the mere fact of not being a party to the proceedings cannot be a valid ground for condonation of delay, as per the settled principle laid down by the NCLAT Principal Bench. The Tribunal found that the appeal was clearly barred by limitation and dismissed the same, along with the pending interlocutory applications (IA Nos. 989, 990 & 991 of 2025).
Headnote
A) Insolvency Law - Limitation for Appeal - Section 61(2) I&B Code, 2016 - Condonation of Delay - The appellant challenged an order dated 19.02.2025 passed by NCLT, Hyderabad, but applied for certified copy on 15.04.2025 and e-filed appeal on 11.04.2025, both beyond the 30-day period under Section 61(2). The ground that appellant was not a party to the proceedings was held insufficient to condone delay, as per settled law by NCLAT Principal Bench. Held that the appeal is barred by limitation and dismissed. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal filed beyond the limitation period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be entertained on the ground that the appellant was not a party to the proceedings before the NCLT.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Pending interlocutory applications (IA Nos. 989, 990 & 991 of 2025) are also dismissed.
Law Points
- Limitation period for appeal under Section 61(2) of I&B Code
- 2016 is mandatory
- delay cannot be condoned on ground of non-party status
- certified copy application must be made within prescribed period
Case Details
2024 LawText (NCLAT) (01) 38
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 326 / 2025 (IA Nos. 989, 990 & 991 / 2025)
Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member)
Mr. V. Ravi Kumar, Advocate (for Appellant); Mr. Kasi Srinivas, Erstwhile Liquidator (for Respondent)
Nalimela Jagadeeshwar Reddy
Mr. Kasi Srinivas, Erstwhile Liquidator, M/s. Payism Technologies India Private Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 61 of I&B Code, 2016 against order of NCLT, Hyderabad
Remedy Sought
Condonation of delay and setting aside of impugned order dated 19.02.2025
Filing Reason
Appellant was not a party to the proceedings and had no knowledge of the order
Previous Decisions
Impugned order dated 19.02.2025 passed by NCLT, Hyderabad in IA (Dis.) IBC No. 2/54/HDB/2025 in CP (IB) No. 14/7/HDB/2020
Issues
Whether the appeal filed beyond the limitation period under Section 61(2) of I&B Code, 2016 can be entertained on the ground that the appellant was not a party to the proceedings before the NCLT.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that since he was not a party to the proceedings, he could not get knowledge of the order, causing delay in filing the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The mere fact that the appellant was not a party to the proceedings before the NCLT cannot be a valid ground for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the I&B Code, 2016, as per settled law by the NCLAT Principal Bench.
Judgment Excerpts
The grounds which has been agitated by the Appellant in his application is that, since he was not a party to the proceedings he could not get the knowledge of the same, and therefore, there was a delay in filing of the Appeal.
Not being a party to the proceedings cannot invariably be taken as to be the reason for condonation of delay, owing to the principle which has been settled by the Hon’ble NCLAT, Principal Bench.
Procedural History
The NCLT, Hyderabad passed the impugned order on 19.02.2025. The appellant applied for a certified copy on 15.04.2025, beyond the limitation period. The appeal was e-filed on 11.04.2025, even before obtaining the certified copy. The NCLAT heard the matter on 02.07.2025 and dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
Acts & Sections
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 61, Section 61(2)
