Limitation For IBC Appeal Runs From Pronouncement Date, Not Knowledge: NCLAT Dismisses CIRP Appeal

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed an appeal challenging the admission of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a private company as time-barred.

It held that the limitation under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date of pronouncement of the order, not from the date of knowledge.

A bench of Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed:

“For counting the statutory period of 30 days for filing the appeal, the same is to be counted from the day after the date of pronouncement of the impugned order. The date of knowledge of impugned order is immaterial for limitation computation.”

The appeal was e-filed on November 17, 2025, against an ex parte order dated August 21, 2025, of the NCLT, Guwahati Bench. The NCLT had admitted a Section 7 plea filed by IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. and commenced CIRP against the corporate debtor.

The insolvency bound company argued that notice of the Section 7 proceedings was not properly served. It claimed it became aware of the admission order only later. It also contended that the registered office address and email on the MCA portal had been non-functional for years.

The financial creditor opposed the plea. It submitted that the appeal was filed beyond the 30-day statutory period and the additional 15-day condonable window under Section 61(2). It argued that service had been effected and that the NCLT had recorded satisfaction before proceeding ex parte.

The NCLAT noted that the Adjudicating Authority had ensured service through all modes. It found no material to show that the registered address or email had changed. The tribunal termed the appellant's stand “nebulous.”

The impugned order was passed on 21 August 2025. The 30-day period expired on 20 September 2025. The additional 15 days ended on 5 October 2025. The appeal, filed on 17 November 2025, was beyond the condonable limit.

The tribunal dismissed the delay condonation application and rejected the appeal.