Srs Sector 5 Resident Welfare ... vs Mr. Amarpal Resolution Professional Of ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 279 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an order is uploaded after its pronouncement and the appellant has not applied for a certified copy, limitation for an appeal against that order runs from the day after the order was delivered, not from the date of uploading; and where the appeal is filed beyond the period for which the Tribunal may condone delay under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, namely fifteen days after the expiry of the limitation period, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay, so the application for condonation 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: SRS Sector 5 Resident Welfare Association ...Appellants Versus Amarpal, ...Respondents Resolution Professional of SRS Real Infrastructure Ltd.
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh D. Karan Singh, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Advocate for RP a/w Mr. Hritik.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
16.03.2026: I.A. No. 1014 of 2026
This is an application filed by the appellant praying for condonation of
delay in filing the appeal. Order impugned was passed on 01.12.2025 and
this appeal has been e-filed on 24.01.2026. Ld. Counsel for the appellant
submits that order came to be uploaded only on 10.12.2025 and from
10.12.2025 the delay is of only 14 days after expiry of limitation. The order
has been delivered on 01.12.2025 limitation for filing appeal shall
commenced. It is not the case of the appellant that appellant applied for any
certified copies of the order. The appeal has not been filed along with any
certified copy of the order.
We thus are of the view that limitation for filing the appeal shall
commence from 02.12.2025 and the appeal was filed beyond condonable period. Our jurisdiction to condone the delay is limited to 15 days as per
Section 61 Sub-Section 2 proviso. The application being beyond condonable
period cannot be entertained. Application for condonation of delay is rejected
consequently Memo of appeal is also rejected.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD
2 of 2 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 279 of 2026
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