Nabard Consultancy Services ... vs M/S. Technopak Advisors (P) Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 377 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority approving a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is confined to a further period of fifteen days beyond the statutory period of limitation, as provided by the proviso to Section 61(2); where the delay sought to be condoned exceeds that period, the Tribunal has no power to condone it, and the delay condonation application must be rejected together with the appeal memo.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: NABARD Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd ...Appellant
Versus
Technopak Advisors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Kapoor, Mr. Azad Bansala and Mr. Yash Gupta, Advocates
For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
08.04.2025 I.A. No.1408 of 2025 This is an application praying for
condonation of 1384 days' delay in filing the Appeal. Order impugned was
passed on 08.02.2021 approving the resolution plan which order was
challenged by filing this appeal on 23.12.2024.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was not
aware of the CIRP proceeding and there has been order by the government to
the recovery of the amount, hence after they came to know the appeal has
been filed. Our jurisdiction to condone the delay is limited to 15 days only as
per Section 61(2) proviso. The delay being beyond the condonable period, the
delay condonation cannot be allowed. Delay condonation Application is
rejected. The memo of Appeal is also rejected.
Re-filing delay of 8 days, sufficient cause has been shown for condoning
the re-filing delay, which is allowed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) pks/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 377 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