In the matter of Royal Oak Furniture India LLP
- CitationIA No.713/2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 36/BB/2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a claim has been rejected as time-barred, the Adjudicating Authority may condone delay in an appeal against that rejection under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with the NCLT Rules, where the appellant has shown genuine and bona fide reasons for the delay, and the appeal is then allowed with a direction that the liquidator consider the claim afresh within a fixed period. A claim against a corporate debtor is not rendered extraneous merely because the decree was passed against the chairman of the corporate debtor, where the underlying invoices were issued in the name of the corporate debtor and the claim accrued against it. Delay in filing a liquidator's progress report or extension application is condoned where the reasons given, such as the illness of a family member, are found sufficient, and extension of the liquidation period is granted where the liquidator indicates the steps remaining can be completed within the extended period.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH [Through Physical hearing/VC Mode (Hybrid)] ITEM No.04 IA.Nos. 282/2025, IA(IBC) 687/2025, 713,782/2025, IA (Liq.) Progress Report 118/2025, IA (Liq.) Progress Report 128/2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 36/BB/2021 IN THE MATTER OF: M/s Royal Oak Furniture India LLP … Applicant Petition under Section 10 of I& B Code, 2016 Order delivered on: 11.12.2025 CORAM: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI RADHAKRISHNA SREEPADA HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) COUNSELS PRESENT: For the Applicant in IA.282/2025 : Appeared (but not marked their presence) The Liquidator : Shri Raghunathan Krishnamurthy ORDER IA.No.282/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred for quashing/setting-aside the communication dated 15.02.2025 by Liquidator of Corporate Debtor thereby rejecting the Appellant’s claim. The Appellant is a decree holder against the Corporate Debtor from Ld. Civil Court, Thiruvalla, Kerala for sum of Rs. 2,92,401/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till decree (07.04.2022) and 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realisation. It is stated that the Appellant came to know of the on-going liquidation process in respect of Corporate Debtor during the execution proceedings, filed in Bangalore on transfer of decree, on a memo being filed by the Liquidator therein. 2. It is stated that the Appellant immediately gathered the details of distress process against the Corporate Debtor and preferred claim in FORM-G dated
10.02.2025 but the same was rejected by the liquidator vide impugned communication on the ground of ‘time barred’. 3. The Liquidator has objected to the Appeal that the concerned decree is against the Respondent Company and therefore claim could not be accepted qua assets of Corporate Debtor, and secondly, for delay of 07 months in submitting the claim. According to him, the Appellant does not deserve any latitude, lest it encourage similar fence-sitters by belatedly approaching with their claims and consuming the precious time period fixed statutorily for completion of the process. 4. Firstly, the appellant had arrayed the Chairman of CD in the civil suit, but the claim did not pertain to the individual; but the concerned invoices had been issued in the name of CD against which the claim has accrued. It cannot be therefore, said to be an extraneous claim. 5. The appeal had been filed with the application under section 5 of limitation Act read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, seeking condonation of delay of 39 days in preferring appeal. It is stated that initially the appellant was not aware of the on-going CIRP/liquidation process against the Corporate Debtor and on being communicated by the liquidator in Execution proceedings, the Petitioner was not available for signing the documents as she was on pilgrimage. 6. Although, the reasons afforded for delay do not inspire adequate confidence as the appeal in the present matter has been filed by the attorney of the appellant who was conferred powers by the applicant on 11.04.2024 and therefore could have moved on his own to save the interest of principal, yet taking into account the circumstances explained, the application is allowed and delay is condoned. 7. The reasons for delay in preferring claim have been succinctly explained by the appellant and cannot be ex-facie discounted. The appellant had genuine/bonafide reasons to make a belated claim. Hence, appeal is allowed. Resultantly, liquidator is directed to consider the claim of appellant within 15 days from today.
IA (IBC) No. 782/2025 1. The application has been filed by the Liquidator seeking condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the 03rd progress report. 2. Heard the Applicant. 3. While, application mentions personal reasons for delay, the liquidator himself argued and submitted that his nonagenarian mother had been taken ill during that time, which held him up. We need not delve into further details of delay and find the reasons to be sufficient. 4. IA therefore, is allowed and delay is hereby condoned. IA (IBC) No. 687/2025 1. This is another application for condonation of delay of 39 days in filing extension application. Since, the concerned period partially overlaps with the IA.782/2025, we accept the sufficiency of request for delay and hereby condoned the same. Application is allowed. IA (IBC) No. 713/2025 1. This application seeks extension of liquidation period of one year from 20.06.2025 to 19.06.2026. The Liquidator states that he will strive to culminate the liquidation within a period of about 4 months. Taking into account the steps remaining, liquidation period is hereby extended till 31.03.2026. The application accordingly allowed. IA (Liq.) Progress Report 118/2025 1. This is 03rd progress report for second quarter of this year. We have gone through it accepted its contents. The application is disposed of. IA (Liq.) Progress Report 128/2025 1. This is 04th progress report for third quarter of this year. We have gone through it and same is accepted and application is disposed of. List the main C.P on 19.02.2026.
-Sd- -Sd- RADHAKRISHNA SREEPADA SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) BL
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