Delay Beyond 45‑Day Limit under IBC Section 61: NCLAT Rejects CIRP Appeals, Rules e‑Portal Upload No Ground for Extension [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, dismissed appeals under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and held that the petitions were barred by limitation under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), observing that the appeals were filed beyond the permissible 45‑day period and that reliance on the e‑portal upload date could not substitute the statutory requirement of filing within the prescribed timeframe.

The appellants, including Harish Shah and others, had contested the resolution plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority, arguing that they were treated unfairly compared to other homebuyers. The tribunal found that the appeals were filed on the 46th day after the order was pronounced, one day beyond the statutory limit.

Under Section 61(2) of the IBC, an appeal must be filed within 30 days, with a maximum 15‑day extension permitted if sufficient cause is shown. The bench noted that the appellants neither sought a certified copy of the order nor demonstrated any valid reason for the delay.

Senior counsel for the appellants contended that the limitation period should begin from the date of upload on the e‑portal, not the date of pronouncement. The tribunal rejected this argument, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd., which clarified that limitation runs from the date of pronouncement in open court, not from the date of online publication.

The Resolution Professional argued that the appellants were part of the Committee of Creditors and were aware of the proceedings, making their delay unjustifiable. The tribunal agreed and stated that procedural timelines under the IBC are strict and non‑extendable.

The bench observed that “Owing to the aforesaid and since we do not have a scope of condonation of delay, beyond the condonable period under proviso to Section 61(2) of the Code, since the aspect of limitation is specifically governed under the special statute, which is a self contained provision having no scope of deviation, and since the delay is beyond the condonable period, which cannot be extended,

We hold that the Company Appeal is barred by limitation having been preferred on 13.12.2025, being the 46th day from the date of the pronouncement of the order, which happened to be 28.10.2025.”

The Division Bench comprising Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial Member) and Shreesha S. Rao (Technical Member) observed that the tribunal has no power to condone delay beyond 45 days, regardless of the reason cited. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as time‑barred.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates