Bhubanananda Pradhan & Ors vs M/S Ocl Iron And Steel Ltd.& Ors
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1282 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal's power to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is confined to a maximum further period of 15 days beyond the statutory limitation period; where the delay sought to be condoned exceeds that period, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone it and must reject the application for condonation and the appeal. An application for condonation of delay in refiling an appeal, where the delay is inordinate and the reasons given (change of counsel and client-counsel correspondence) are not sufficient, is liable to be rejected, the Tribunal holding that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a time-bound regime that cannot be entertained after such an inordinate delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1282 of 2025 & I.A. No. 4961, 5012 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Bhubananda Pradhan & Ors. ...Appellant
Versus
OCL Iron and Steel Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Shankar Kr. Jha, K.N. Mishra, M. Bhardwaj, Shubhashish Raj, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Anand Varma, Apoorva Pandey, Adv.
ORDER
07.10.2025: I.A No. 4961 of 2025: This is an application filed by the
Appellant praying for condonation of delay of 487 days in refiling of the appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellants are employees of
the CD who were not aware of the CIRP and two officers of the CD were
appointed to help the IRP but the salary of the appellants could not be taken
care by the IRP in the proceedings.
Refiling delay occurred due to change of the counsel. There was a lot of
correspondence between the client and counsel. The delay of 487 days is
inordinate delay and we do not find sufficient reasons in the application to
condone inordinate delay. IBC is a timebound proceeding and cannot be
entertained after such an inordinate delay, therefore, we reject the application
for refiling delay.
I.A No. 5012 of 2025: This is an application filed by the Appellant praying for
condonation of delay of 128 days in filing of the appeal. The order was passed
on 17.10.2023 and the appeal has been filed through e-filing on 26.03.2024.
Our jurisdiction to condone the delay is limited to 15 days as per
Section 61(2) proviso, therefore, we are unable to consider the prayer to
condone the delay beyond the condonable period. The application is rejected.
The memo of appeal is also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] The Chairperson
[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Sheetal/NN
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