The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has dismissed an appeal filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), holding that an appeal filed beyond the ordinary limitation period cannot be treated as validly instituted when the accompanying application for condonation of delay is submitted only after the maximum statutory period has expired.
The bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna, Officiating Chairperson, and Barun Mitra, Member (Technical), passed the order on October 26, 2026, in proceedings involving Aegis Resolution Services Pvt. Ltd., the resolution professional of Kute Sons Fresh Dairy Pvt. Ltd., and other respondents.
Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments – September 2026
The ruling turned on compliance with Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The tribunal dismissed the appeal on limitation without examining the substantive challenge to the National Company Law Tribunal’s order.
The ED had challenged an order dated April 6, 2026, passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, in I.A. (IBC)(Plan) No. 10 of 2026 in CP (IB) No. 246 of 2025.
According to the appellate tribunal’s order, the ordinary 30-day period for filing an appeal expired on May 6, 2026. The ED filed its appeal on May 14, 2026, after that period had ended.
However, the appeal was not accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. The tribunal treated this omission as a defect affecting the proper institution of the appeal.
The additional 15-day period available under the proviso to Section 61(2) expired on May 21, 2026. The ED subsequently moved its delay-condonation application on May 26, 2026, after that outer limit had elapsed.
The central question was whether the earlier filing of the appeal could preserve the challenge when the application necessary to seek condonation was filed outside the statutory window.
The tribunal held that the absence of a delay-condonation application within the maximum 45-day period was fatal to the appeal.
Its reasoning distinguishes between submitting an appeal and properly instituting a delayed appeal in accordance with the prescribed requirements. On the facts before it, the earlier filing did not overcome the failure to submit the supporting application within the statutory period.
The bench concluded that, since no application seeking condonation had been filed within the statutory 45 days under Section 61(2), the appeal had to be treated as barred by limitation.
The NCLAT relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashdan Properties (P) Ltd. v. DSK Global Education & Research (P) Ltd., cited in the order as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1682.
In the passage reproduced by the tribunal, the Supreme Court addressed an appeal initially e-filed without a delay-condonation application or an application seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned order.
The Supreme Court stressed the need to verify whether an appeal had been properly instituted in conformity with the prescribed norms, particularly where limitation had been specifically challenged. It treated that question as one going to the root of the appellate tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The NCLAT applied this reasoning while considering whether the ED’s defective filing could sustain the present appeal.
The bench further relied on M/s LIC Housing Finance Ltd. v. Mr. Ramakrishnan Sadasivan, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Insolvency) No. 658 of 2025. In that case, the tribunal held that a delayed appeal unsupported by a condonation application could not be treated as validly instituted merely on the date the appeal itself was filed.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: Cash Advance From Selling House To Repay Housing Loan: ITAT Deletes Penalty
