Alpesh Vasudev Gandhi vs Shri Vinod Kumar S Shah Liquidator Of M/S ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 39 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The period for filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date the impugned order is delivered, and the Tribunal's power to condone delay under the proviso to that sub-section is confined to a further period of fifteen days beyond the thirty-day period. Judicial custody of the appellant does not extend or suspend the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal, although it may be relied upon as a ground explaining delay; it does not, of itself, bring a delayed appeal within the condonable period. Time taken to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order is excluded from the limitation period only where the certified copy is applied for within thirty days of the order's pronouncement; where the application for the certified copy is made after that period, no exclusion is granted for the time taken in its preparation. Where an appeal is filed beyond the thirty-day period plus the fifteen-day condonable period, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay, and the delay condonation application must be rejected and the appeal consequently rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Alpesh Vasudev Gandhi ...Appellant
Versus Vinodkumar S. Shah, Liquidator of Alps Lesuire Holidays Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Harjot Singh Kassowal, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Vinod Kumar S. Shah, Mr. Amir Ariswal and Mr. Yash Jariwala, Advocates for R-1.
With
I.A. No. 477 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.126 of 2026
IN THE MATTER OF: Alpesh Vasudev Gandhi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus Vinodkumar S. Shah Liquidator of Alps Lesuire Holidays Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Harjot Singh Kassowal, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Vinod Kumar S. Shah, Advocate for R-1.
ORDER
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
These two appeals arises out of the liquidation process of M/s Alps
Lesuire Holidays Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.39 of 2026 has been
Cont'd.../ 2
filed challenging the order dated 22.08.2025 passed in I.A. No.1404 of 2023
filed by the Liquidator, which appeal came to be e-filed on 04.12.2025.
There being delay in filing the Appeal, Appellant has filed I.A. No.147 of
2026 praying for condonation of 74 days delay in filing the appal. Company
Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.126 of 2026 has been filed by the Appellant challenging
the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the NCLT, Delhi Bench, Court No.1 in
I.A. No.191 of 2020 filed by the Liquidator. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.)
No.126 of 2026 challenging the order dated 10.10.2025 has been e-filed on
02.12.2025. There being delay in filing the appeal, I.A. No.477 of 2026 has
been filed praying for condonation of 16 days delay in filing the Appeal. We
had issued notice in the Delay Condonation Applications. Learned counsel
for the Liquidator has appeared in both the applications.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant in support of delay condonation
applications in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.39 of 2026 submits that
Appellant was in judicial custody from 13.08.2025 to 30.10.2025 pursuant
to the conviction order dated 11.03.2020 passed by the 10th Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, hence, the Appellant was neither aware of the
impugned order nor in a position to apply for its certified copy or seek legal
advice. In the application following prayers have been made:
"a. Condone the delay of 74 days in filing the present Appeal for the reason(s) given above; and/or
b. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.39 & 126 of 2026 3
3. Appellant's case is that on account of Appellant being in judicial
custody, he could apply for certified copy on 16.09.2025 and copy was ready
on 16.09.2025. It is submitted that Appellant being in judicial custody in
case of conviction under Section 38 of the NI Act, the delay in filing the
appeal need to be condoned there being sufficient cause on account of
judicial custody.
4. In support of delay condonation application filed in Company Appeal
(AT) (Ins.) No.126 of 2026, Appellant's case is that he was in judicial custody
and was released on bail only on 30.10.2025, after which he could applied
for certified copy on 14.11.2025 and received the same on 19.11.2025,
hence, 6 days exclusion be granted and there is only 16 days delay. Prayers
made by the application are as follows:
"a. Condone the delay of 16 days in filing the present Appeal for the reason(s) given above; and/ or
b. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case"
5. Learned counsel for the Liquidator opposing the submissions of the
Appellant made in the Applications for condonation of delay contends that
provision for filing an appeal is only for 30 days as per Section 61(2) of the
I&B Code and extended period of only 15 days. The applications filed by the
Appellant in support of delay in filing the appeal being beyond permissible
period cannot be condoned and the delay condonation application need to
be rejected.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.39 & 126 of 2026 4
6. Replying to the delay condonation application I.A. No.147 of 2026 in
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.39 of 2026, it is submitted that order was
passed on 22.08.2025 and the appeal has been filed by the Appellant only
on 04.12.2025, which is delayed by 74 days, which is beyond condonable
period. It is submitted the limitation for filing an appeal commences on the
date when the order is delivered and the reason that Appellant was in
judicial custody cannot be a reason for extension of period of limitation as
permitted by the statute.
7. Opposing I.A. No.477 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.126 of
2026, learned counsel for the Liquidator submits that when the copy of the
appeal was first received by the Liquidator, there were 6 Appellants, however
on the pretext of removing defects, the Appellant has deleted other
Appellants and has filed Appeal showing only one Appellant i.e. Alpesh
Vasudev Gandhi. The judicial custody of one of the Appellant - Alpesh
Vasudev Gandhi in no manner inhibited filing of appeal within the
prescribed period. Delay being beyond the condonable period, delay
condonation application deserves to be rejected.
8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record. According to own case of the Appellant, delay in
filing the appeals are beyond condonable period. In Company Appeal (AT)
(Ins.) No.39 of 2026 prayer is to condone delay of 74 days and in Company
Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.126 of 2026 prayer is to condone delay of 16 days.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.39 & 126 of 2026 5
9. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.39 of 2026, from the certified copy of
the impugned order it is clear that copy was applied on 16.09.2025 whereas
order was passed on 22.08.2025. Thus, the certified copy was applied on
behalf of the Appellant on 16.09.2025 during which period the Appellant
was in judicial custody. The mere fact the Appellant was in judicial custody
cannot preclude a person in judicial custody to exercise his statutory right
of filing an appeal or other pleadings. Period for filing an appeal against an
order commences when an order is delivered and there cannot be extension
of statutory period for particular period during which Appellant was in
judicial custody. Judicial custody may be a case for explaining delay in
filing the appeal but the applications have been filed beyond the condonable
period. The factum of Appellant being in judicial custody during 23.08.2025
to 30.10.2025 cannot be any reason for condoning delay which is beyond
the condonable period.
10. As noted above, in both the above Appeals the Appellant has applied
for certified copy. In Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 39 of 2026, certified
copy was applied on 16.09.2025 i.e. within the period of 30 days' from
delivery of the order and in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.126 of 2026,
certified copy was applied on 14.11.2025 and impugned order was passed
on 10.10.2025. Application made on 14.11.2025 was beyond 30 days,
hence, Appellant was not entitled for exclusion of period taken for
preparation of certified copy of the impugned order. Hence, in Company
Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.126 of 2026, delay is not only 16 days but 21 days.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.39 & 126 of 2026 6
11. This Tribunal under Section 61(2) proviso has jurisdiction to condone
the delay of only 15 days. The delay in both the appeals being beyond the
condonable period of 15 days, application praying for condonation of delay
cannot be allowed. In result, both the applications I.A. No.147 of 2026 and
I.A. No.477 of 2026 praying for condonation of delay are rejected. Memo of
Appeals are also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) NEW DELHI
27th March, 2026
Archana
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.39 & 126 of 2026
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free