Oppo Mobiles India Private Limited vs Hipad Technology India Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Hipad Technology Pvt. Ltd., (Under Liquidation) Through Liquidator ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tushar Gupta, Mr. Ishan Singh Kakar and Mr. Sumit Kr. Mishra, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Rakshit Gupta, Advocate.

Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate for Liquidator.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

19.12.2025 : I.A. No. 6673/2025

1. This is an application praying for condonation of delay in filing of the

appeal.

2. Appellant submits that the delay is only 15 days which is within the

condonable period. It is submitted that order was passed on 12.06.2025 and

limitation shall be computed from the next day i.e., on 13.06.2025 and 30

days period expired on 12.07.2025 which being a Saturday, hence by virtue

of Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, the appeal could have been filed within

limitation by 14.07.2025, hence the appeal filed on 27.07.2025 is within the

condonable period of 15 days.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposing the submission submits

that the benefit of 12.07.2025 i.e., Saturday is not available since it is not

available for extended period and it is available only for period of limitation.

4. In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant has given

reasons in paragraph 3(ii) to 3(vii) explaining the reason why the appeal could

not be filed within a limitation.

5. We find that delay has been sufficiently explained. We are not in

agreement with the submission of the counsel for the respondent that the

appeal was filed on 17th day after expiry of limitation. The appeal having

been filed on 27.07.2025 is within the condonable period. We, thus are of the

view that delay condonation application deserves to be allowed.

The delay condonation application for filing of the appeal is allowed.

I.A. No. 6622/2025

1. This is an application praying for condonation of delay of 71 days in

refiling of the appeal.

2. The reason given is at paragraph 3 of the delay condonation application

for refiling.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed a reply refuting the

submission of the appellant and contended that there is not satisfactory

explanation of the delay. He submits that the certified copy was applied more

than 30 days.

4. Rejoinder has been filed by the appellant and in the rejoinder, appellant

has explained the reason for refiling delay.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1692 of 2025 & I.A. No. 6622 & 6673 of 2025 2 of 4

5. Affidavit of the counsel has also been referred to, and in paragraphs 3

& 4 of the rejoinder, the appellant has given the details of steps taken.

Paragraph 4 which gives chronology of relevant events, clearly explains the

refiling delay.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that certified copy was

applied after 30 days which is relevant only for condonation of delay, no

benefit can be taken by the appellant without certified copy is applied after

30 days for condonation of delay, however, we are satisfied that the reasons

given in paragraph 4 of the rejoinder coupled with paragraph 3 in the

application satisfactorily explained the delay of 71 days in refiling of the

appeal.

Refiling delay is condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1692/2025

1. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 12.06.2025 passed

by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh

Bench, Court - I, Chandigarh) in Section 9 application filed by the respondent.

2. Adjudicating authority by the impugned order has held the application

to be maintainable and within the limitation period, in view of the ex-post

facto approval granted under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 (for short the 'IBC').

3. Learned counsel for the appellant is aggrieved only by interpretation

put by the adjudicating authority on the judgment of this Tribunal in

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1692 of 2025 & I.A. No. 6622 & 6673 of 2025 3 of 4 'Slimline Realty Private Limited' Vs. 'Jigar Bhatt' in [Comp. App. (AT)

(Ins.) No. 690/2024], as noted in paragraph 9(vi) of the impugned order.

4. The application under Section 9 admittedly is pending consideration,

we are of the view that insofar as the interpretation of the judgment of this

Tribunal, as noted above in paragraph 9(vi), parties shall at liberty to advance

their submissions when the application under Section 9 comes for hearing

and observations made in paragraph 9(vi) may not be treated to be expression

of final opinion on the merits of the submissions.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that no purpose shall be

served in keeping the appeal pending. Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid

observations.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1692 of 2025 & I.A. No. 6622 & 6673 of 2025 4 of 4