Judicial Custody Of Appellant No Ground To Extend IBC Limitation: NCLAT In Alps Leisure Liquidation

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has recently dismissed two applications as time-barred, holding that judicial custody cannot be used to bypass the statutory limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The appellate tribunal clarified that Section 61 of the IBC permits condonation only up to 15 days beyond the initial 30-day limitation period and does not allow any extension beyond this outer limit, even if the appellant was in judicial custody.

The ruling came in appeals filed by Alpesh Vasudev Gandhi, an appellant in the liquidation process of Alps Leisure Holidays Ltd., who had challenged orders passed by the adjudicating authority.

A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “The mere fact the Appellant was in judicial custody cannot preclude a person in judicial custody to exercise his statutory right of filing an appeal or other pleadings. Period for filing an appeal against an order commences when an order is delivered and there cannot be extension of statutory period for particular period during which Appellant was in judicial custody. Judicial custody may be a case for explaining delay in filing the appeal but the applications have been filed beyond the condonable period. The factum of Appellant being in judicial custody during 23.08.2025 to 30.10.2025 cannot be any reason for condoning delay which is beyond the condonable period.”

In one appeal, Gandhi sought condonation of a delay of 74 days in filing the appeal against an order dated August 22, 2025, while in the second, a delay of 16 days was sought to be condoned against an order dated October 10, 2025.

It was Gandhi's case that he remained in judicial custody from August 13, 2025 to October 30, 2025 following his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and was therefore unable to take steps such as applying for certified copies or seeking legal advice within time.

Rejecting this contention, the tribunal held that while judicial custody may explain delay within the condonable window, it cannot justify condonation once the delay exceeds the condonable period of 15 days beyond the initial 30-day limitation period.

The tribunal emphasised that limitation begins from the date of delivery of the order and cannot be extended for the period during which an appellant remains in custody.

The tribunal also noted that in one of the appeals, the Gandhi had applied for a certified copy of the impugned order beyond the initial 30-day limitation period and was therefore not entitled to exclusion of the time taken for obtaining the copy. As a result, the delay in that case exceeded even the period claimed.

Holding that the delays in both appeals were beyond the condonable period prescribed under Section 61(2) of the IBC, the tribunal dismissed both felya condonation pleas and appeals. 

For Appellant: Advocate Harjot Singh Kassowal

For Respondent: Advocates Pankaj Jain, Atul Sharma, Vinod Kumar S. Shah, Amir Ariswal and Yash Jariwala