Priyanka Uppal vs Substratal Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 192 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, the outer limit for condonation of delay in filing an appeal is 90 days, inclusive of the 45-day condonable period; the Appellate Tribunal has no power to condone a delay exceeding that limit, and the limitation prescribed is mandatory rather than discretionary. Where an appellant fails to comply with a direction of the Tribunal to explain the delay by additional affidavit, and the delay in refiling is both unexplained and inordinate, the application for condonation of delay in refiling is rejected and the appeal is dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Priyanka Uppal ...Appellant Versus Substratal Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant :
For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
17.08.2026: Despite repeated calls, none appears for the Appellant.
As per the report of the Registry and according to the applications preferred
by the Appellant herself, being I.A. No. 4716 of 2025 and I.A. No. 4806 of
2025, the Company Appeal suffers from the delay of 93 days in filing of the
Company Appeal as well as, the delay of 190 days in refiling.
2. According to the proviso to sub-Section (3) of Section 421 provides
that the upper limit of delay that could be considered to be condoned is a
maximum of 90 days, after including within it the 45 days of condonable
period thereafter even the law does not prescribes that if the period of delay
in filing the Appeal barges over the upper limit of 90 days, which, in the
instant case, has been crossed, as the Company Appeal was preferred on the
93rd day, the same cannot be condoned under any of the circumstances.
3. This Tribunal, by an Order dated 06.04.2026, had granted time to the
Appellant to explain the delay by filing an additional affidavit; that too has
not been complied with.
4. Having considered the reasons that has been given in the applications
and besides being conscious of the fact that the aspect of the delay so far as
the Appeal preferred under Section 421 of Companies Act, is obligatory in
nature and not discretionary does not cast any discretion with this Tribunal
to exempt a delay beyond the period prescribed under the proviso to sub-
section (3) of Section 421. Besides that since the delay in refiling is
unexplained, besides it happens to be inordinate, we do not think that the
delay condonation application or the delay in refiling deserves consideration.
The same would stand rejected.
5. Accordingly, the Company Appeal too would stand dismissed.
[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) rashmi/rr
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