Satyadev Gupta vs Vikas Kumar Garg
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1399 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under the limitation regime for appeals against insolvency orders, the period of limitation runs from the date the impugned order is pronounced, not from the date the appellant becomes aware of its effective terms or uploading of the order; ignorance of the effective order does not by itself extend the limitation period. A party who applies for a certified copy only after the 30-day period following pronouncement of the order is not entitled to exclude, for limitation purposes, the time taken in preparing the certified copy. Where the appeal is filed beyond the condonable period, the application for condonation of delay must be rejected and the appeal consequently rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Satyadev Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
Vikas Kumar Garg, RP, Jaipuria Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, Mr. Thakur Ankit Singh, Mr. Akshit Awasthi, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Vipul Pankaj Ssnghi, Ms. Anishika Verma, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
27.02.2026: I.A. No. 5466 of 2025: This is an application praying for
condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The order impugned was passed on
20.05.2025 and this appeal has been e-filed on 25.07.2025. Learned counsel
for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was not aware of the effective
order on the date of pronouncement and he only came to know when order
was uploaded on 25.06.2025. He applied for certified copy of the impugned
order on 02.07.2025, which was received on 14.07.2025 and said period
needs to be excluded.
2. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the order having been
pronounced on 20.05.2025, the limitation shall start from the said date and
Appeal being filed beyond 45 days, the delay is beyond condonable period.
3. From the facts brought on the record and the reply which has been filed
by the Respondent it is clear that the order was pronounced on 25.06.2025
and the mere fact that Appellant was not aware of the effective order cannot
be reason to extend period of limitation. Furthermore, it is own case of the
Appellant that he applied for the certified copy after 30 days from passing of
order. Therefore, he is not entitled for benefit of period during which certified
copy was under preparation.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent has rightly relied on judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power
Limited & Ors., (2022) 2 SCC 244" where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that from the date of the pronouncement the limitation shall commence.
5. In view of the above fact, we are of the view that delay in filing the appeal
is beyond condonable period. The delay being beyond condonable period,
delay condonation application cannot be allowed. Delay condonation
application is rejected. In result, memo of appeal is also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1399 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