Department Of Central Goods And Service ... vs Satyendra Prasad Khorania & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 105 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Limitation for an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 begins to run from the date the impugned order is pronounced, and does not stop running until the appellant acquires actual knowledge of the order. A stakeholder in the corporate insolvency resolution process who was not a party to the proceedings is bound by the same limitation period under Section 61 as any other person aggrieved by the order, and cannot claim a later commencement of limitation by reason of non-party status.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Department of Central Goods and Service Tax ...Appellant Versus Satyendra P. Khorania & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Advocate.
For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
04.04.2025: I.A. No. 438 of 2025
1. This is an application filed by the appellant praying for condonation of
delay in filing of the appeal.
2. The order was pronounced on 31.03.2023 and this appeal has been e-
filed by the appellant on 29.05.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant came to
know about the order only on 15.04.2023, hence for the appellant limitation
could begin from 15.04.2023 and from 15.04.2023 the delay is only 14 days.
4. We have considered the submissions of counsel for the appellant and
perused the record.
5. The order impugned was pronounced by the Court on 31.03.2023.
After pronouncing of the order, limitation commenced and that shall continue
and cannot be held to be arrested till appellant came to know about the order.
6. The appellant submits that appellant was not party to the proceeding.
Appellants were stakeholder in the CIRP and they have already filed claim and
treatment of the claim was there in the resolution plan which was approved
on 31.03.2023. Anyone who is aggrieved by the order including the
stakeholders in the CIRP have to file an appeal within the time as prescribed
under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
7. The delay in appeal is beyond condonable period, hence we are unable
to allow the application praying for condonation of delay.
Delay condonation application is rejected. Memo of appeal is also
rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 105 of 2025 & I.A. No. 308 & 438 of 2025 2 of 2
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