National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal for Delay in Filing. The court upheld the specific ratio in Tata Steel Limited v. Raj Kumar Banerjee regarding the application of the Limitation Act to condonable periods.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: CHENNAI
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal filed by the proprietor of Guru Rajendra Minerals Trading Company against the resolution professional of M/s Sai Krishna Minerals Private Limited. The appellant sought to condone a delay of 14 days in filing the appeal, which the registry noted as 17 days. The learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that the appeal was filed within the permissible time frame, considering the last date for filing was extended due to a Sunday. The counsel referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Steel Limited v. Raj Kumar Banerjee, which stated that Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies only to the prescribed period for filing an appeal, not the condonable period. However, the counsel also cited an earlier judgment in Sridevi Datla v. Union of India, which suggested that Section 4 could apply to the condonable period. The court acknowledged the arguments but ultimately decided to adhere to the precedent set in Tata Steel, dismissing the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal itself. The resolution professional had admitted part of the appellant's claim, but further verification was needed for the balance claim. The court allowed the appellant to submit supporting materials for the claim within a week. No costs were awarded.

Headnote

A) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Application for condonation of delay dismissed - Limitation Act, 1963, Section 4 - The court held that the application for condonation of delay could not be sustained as it was bound by the specific ratio in Tata Steel Limited v. Raj Kumar Banerjee, which did not apply the condonable period under Section 4 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was dismissed due to the inability to condone the delay (Paras 2-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under the Limitation Act and relevant precedents.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. The appellant was permitted to submit supporting materials for the balance claim within one week.

Law Points

  • Limitation Act
  • condonation of delay
  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • General Clauses Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (07) 108

Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 29 6 /2026

2026-07-29

Justice N. Seshasayee, Jatindranath Swain

Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Mr. Arvind AS, Mr. G. Murali

Manoj Kumar Jain

Gonugunta Murali, M/s Sai Krishna Minerals Private Limited

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to condone a delay in filing the appeal.

Filing Reason

The appeal was filed after the prescribed period due to a misunderstanding of the applicable dates.

Previous Decisions

The court referenced previous judgments regarding the application of the Limitation Act.

Issues

Whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned Application of Section 4 of the Limitation Act to the condonable period

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the appeal was filed within the permissible time frame considering the last date was extended due to a Sunday. The respondent maintained that the delay could not be condoned as per the precedent set in Tata Steel.

Ratio Decidendi

The court adhered to the precedent set in Tata Steel Limited v. Raj Kumar Banerjee, which clarified the application of Section 4 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonable period.

Judgment Excerpts

The application for condonation of delay cannot be sustained. The resolution professional has admitted part of the claim of the appellant.

Procedural History

The application for condonation of delay was filed, and objections were raised by the registry regarding the actual delay period.

Acts & Sections

  • Limitation Act, 1963: Section 4
  • General Clauses Act, 1897: Section 10
  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes FIR in BNS and IT Act Case Over Instagram Compliment. Single Message Complimenting Appearance Between Classmates Held Not to Constitute Voyeurism, Stalking, or Insult to Modesty Under Sections 77, 78, 79 BNS, 2023 and ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in SC/ST Act Case Due to Withdrawal of Supplementary Statement by Complainant. Original Complaint Lacked Caste Reference; Word Used Was 'Bhamtya' (Deceiver), Not a Caste Slur.