NCLAT Refuses To Condone Delay In Appeal; Limitation Starts From Pronouncement, Not Uploading

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has rejected an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an insolvency appeal by the Resolution Professional of Trading Engineers International Ltd., holding that in the facts of the case limitation commenced from the date the order was pronounced in open court and not from the date it was uploaded on the NCLT website.

A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra found that the National Company Law Tribunal's order dated June 11, 2025 had been pronounced in open court in the presence of the appellant and his counsel. The appeal was e-filed on August 28, 2025.

Rejecting the plea that limitation should run from July 4, 2025, when the order was uploaded on the NCLT portal, the bench held:

“Limitation for filing appeal against order dated 11.06.2025 shall commence on pronouncement of the order on 11.06.2025 after excluding 11.06.2025 in computation for limitation. Appeal which was filed by the Appellant on 28.08.2025 was much beyond 45 days from date of pronouncement on 11.06.2025. The delay in filing the appeal being beyond condonable period, application for condonation of delay cannot be allowed.”

The appeal arose from an order dated June 11, 2025, passed in an application in which directions were issued concerning restoration of electricity supply by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. during the corporate insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor.

Before the Appellate Tribunal, the Resolution Professional contended that the limitation period should be computed from the date of uploading of the order. The respondents submitted that the order had been pronounced in open court on June 11, 2025 in the presence of the appellant and his counsel and that uploading of the order was irrelevant once pronouncement had taken place.

The tribunal noted that the appellant had admitted in its rejoinder that the order was pronounced in open court. It also referred to the minutes of the 39th Committee of Creditors meeting, which recorded that after hearing both sides, the NCLT directed payment of CIRP period dues and restoration of electricity supply on 11 June 2025.

“When it is case of the Appellant itself that order was pronounced in the open court on 11.06.2025, the running of limitation cannot remain arrested till 04.07.2025 when it was uploaded, as contended by the Appellant,” the Bench observed.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd., the tribunal reiterated that where an order is pronounced in open court, limitation runs from that date. It distinguished Sanjay Pandurang Kalate on the ground that in that case no substantive order had been pronounced on the date of hearing.

Holding that the appeal had been filed beyond the maximum condonable period of 45 days under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Tribunal rejected the delay condonation application. Consequently, the memo of appeal was also rejected