Shri Alpesh Vasudev Gandhi vs Small Industries Development Bank Of ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1000 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an order is pronounced in open court, the date of its uploading is not relevant for computing the limitation period for an appeal; time runs from the date of pronouncement, and the appellant is entitled only to exclusion of the period during which the certified copy was being prepared. The Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an appeal under the proviso to Section 61(2) is limited to a further period of 15 days beyond the statutory 30-day period, and it has no power to condone a delay exceeding that outer limit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Alpesh Vasudev Gandhi, Representative of Suspended Management ...Appellant
Versus
Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Guha, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. NPS Chawla, Mr. Sujoy Datta, Ms. Mahima Shekhawat, Mr. Abhishek Chhabra, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Vinod Kumar S. Shah, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Palash S. Singhai, Mr. Tirth Naryak, Mr. Harshal Sareen, Advocates for R-4 to7.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
22.09.2025: I.A. No. 3920 of 2025: This is an application filed by the
Appellant praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The order
impugned was pronounced on 21.04.2025 and this appeal has been filed on
09.06.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the order was uploaded
on 22.04.2025 and he applied for certified copy on 23.04.2025, which was
Cont'd.../ received on 24.04.2025. He submitted that hence limitation shall commence
from 25.04.2025 and from 25.04.2025 if limitation is computed, the appeal
was filed within 15 days after expiry of 30 days.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent refuting the submissions of learned
counsel for the Appellant submits that order having pronounced in open court
on 21.04.2025, the limitation shall commence from very next day i.e.
22.04.2025 and certified copy having been applied on 23.04.2025 and
received on 24.04.2025, Appellant can get exclusion of only two days' during
which period the copy was under preparation.
4. The order impugned has been pronounced in open Court. When order
is pronounced in open court question of uploading of order is not relevant for
the purposes of limitation. Appellant is entitled for benefit of two days'
exclusion during which the certified copy was under preparation. Order
having passed on 21.04.2025, 30 days' period expired on 21.05.2025 and
after 21.05.2025 on 05.06.2025, the 15 days' period shall come to an end. By
giving benefit of 2 days more, the Appellant ought to have filed appeal by
07.06.2025. Appeal having filed on 09.06.2025 i.e. beyond 15 days' period,
there is clear delay of 17 days in filing the appeal, which is beyond condonable
period.
5. We, thus, are of the view that our jurisdiction to condone delay is
limited to only 15 days under Section 61(2) proviso and we are unable to
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1000 of 2025 2 of 3 condone the delay of 17 days. Delay condonation application is rejected. In
result, Memo of appeal is also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1000 of 2025 3 of 3
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