Rajesh Gupta vs Abhilash Lal And Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 237 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The period of limitation prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is 30 days, and the Appellate Tribunal's power to condone delay under the proviso to that sub-section extends only to a further 15 days; delay beyond that period cannot be condoned. Whether the 15-day condonable period is affected by the fact that its last day falls on a holiday is irrelevant to the exclusion of time for limitation; the period is not extended on account of a holiday falling within it. An application to condone a delay of 875 days in refiling an appeal, which is far beyond the statutory condonable limit, cannot be entertained, and a delay of that magnitude is not condoned on the ground of the counsel's personal and professional difficulties, which are not sufficient cause in the circumstances presented.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Rajesh Gupta ...Appellant Versus Abhilash Lal & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Nitin Agarwal, Advocate.
For Respondents :
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 238 of 2025 & I.A. No. 839, 916 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Kanta Mishra ...Appellant Versus Abhilash Lal & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Nitin Agarwal, Advocate.
For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
04.03.2025 : I.A. No. 915/2025
1. This is an Application praying for condonation of 16 days delay in filing
of the Appeal.
2. Order impugned was passed on 06.07.2022 and this Appeal has been
e-filed on 21.08.2022. 30 days period came to an end on 05.08.2022 and
thereafter it is filed on 16th day.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the 21.08.2022 was
Sunday hence the Appeal could be filed thereafter.
4. We have already by a Judgment which was delivered last week in the
matter of 'BSE Limited' Vs. 'Mrudula Brodie & Ors.' in Comp. App. (AT)
(Ins.) No. 1862/2024, which Judgment held that with regard to 15 days
condonable period, the fact that 15 day is falling on holiday is not relevant for
excluding the date for limitation.
5. Our jurisdiction to condone the delay is only limited to 15 days as per
Section 61(2) proviso. We are unable to condone the delay which is beyond
15 days.
Delay condonation application is rejected. Memo of Appeal is also
rejected.
I.A. No. 839/2025
1. This is an Application praying for condonation of 875 days delay in
refiling of the Appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that after the curing of the
defects, defects were raised on 29.08.2022 and curing of the defect it was filed
in first week of December and thereafter defects were raised again and it was
refiled. He also referred to the email dated 20.07.2023. The reason for refiling
delay has been given in Paragraphs 4 & 5, which are as follows:
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 237 & 238 of 2025 2 of 4 "4. It is submitted that the counsel for the Appellant is based out of Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. Further, the mother of the Counsel for the Applicant had been diagnosed with Cancer and for her treatment, the counsel had to travel to Mumbai often. It is submitted that unfortunately, the mother of the Counsel of the Applicant passed away on 21/02/2023. Further even the Counsel for the Applicant was himself undergoing treatment of Jaundice and was advised occasionally for complete bed rest. The true copies of the medical document of the Mother of the counsel for the Applicant is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-B. the true copy of the death certificate of the mother of the counsel for the Applicant is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-C. The true copy of the Medical certificate for the counsel of the Applicant are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-D.
5. It is submitted that the treatment of the mother of the counsel for the Applicant and his own treatment affected the counsel personally and professionally wherein he missed out of several professional commitments. It is submitted that there was huge delay in completing certain formalities in filing of cases and getting it listed. It is submitted that on account of treatment of the mother of the counsel for the Applicant and the counsel himself affected the counsel professionally too. Further, in order to complete the filing of the Appeal, the Counsel for the Applicant had also engaged an advocate based out of Delhi but he could not get much support from him, hence he had to change the counsel at Delhi who could do the formalities of filing before the NCLAT, New Delhi. It is submitted that it is on account of above stated facts and circumstances that there has been huge delay in curing the defects from time to time."
3. The Appeal has been filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short 'the Code' or 'the IBC') arises out of the IBC
process. We are of the view that there is no sufficient cause shown in the
Application for condonation of inordinate delay of 875 days. We do not find
any good ground to condone the huge delay of 875 days.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 237 & 238 of 2025 3 of 4 Refiling delay 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.) Nos. 237 & 238 of 2025 4 of 4
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