- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court refuses to condone delay in filing appeal NCLAT had rejected the appeal since it was filed beyond the legally permissible 30-days limit The Supreme Court of India upheld an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on the ground that an appeal filed after the delay of more than 30 days was untenable in law. The Division Bench of the Supreme...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Supreme Court refuses to condone delay in filing appeal
NCLAT had rejected the appeal since it was filed beyond the legally permissible 30-days limit
The Supreme Court of India upheld an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on the ground that an appeal filed after the delay of more than 30 days was untenable in law.
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India at New Delhi, comprising of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian dealt with this matter titled Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd v Sai Wardha Power Generation Ltd & Anr.
The bench did not go into the facts of the case and solely focused on the delay aspect of the matter. The Appellant – Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd filed an appeal in the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), beyond the condonable period provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
The bench observed that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLT) was right in rejecting the appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the condonable period of 15 days after the expiry of the period of limitation of 30 days prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Section 61 (2) of the IBC provides:
"Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal:
Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days".
The Appellant requested the liberty to move the National Company Law Tribunal by invoking Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 and the Bench allowed such liberty if permissible in law.
The appeal was dismissed since it was filed beyond the condonable delay.