National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeals on Belated Claims in CIRP — Delay Not Justified. The appellants failed to provide sufficient cause for the 369-day delay in filing claims, leading to dismissal under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeals were filed against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissing the appellants' applications for the acceptance of belated claims in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Logix Infratech Pvt. Ltd. The corporate debtor was admitted to CIRP on 29.09.2022, with a public announcement made on 02.10.2022, setting a deadline for claims by 13.10.2022. The appellants submitted their claims on 01.01.2024, 369 days after the deadline, citing a misunderstanding regarding the necessity of filing separate claims. The NCLT dismissed their applications, stating that no sufficient cause for the delay was shown. The appellants argued that they had invested in residential units and had executed a settlement deed prior to the CIRP commencement, which they believed justified their claims. However, the respondents contended that the claims were based on fraudulent transactions and that the appellants were aware of the ongoing CIRP proceedings. The court analyzed the submissions and found that the appellants had previously filed claims that were accepted, indicating their awareness of the process. The court concluded that the delay was not adequately explained and dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the need for timely claims in CIRP proceedings.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Condonation of Delay - Criteria for Condonation - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 66 - The appellants failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay of 369 days in filing their claims, which was deemed not genuine. The court held that the delay was not adequately justified, leading to the dismissal of the appeals (Paras 31-32).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the delay in filing claims by the appellants can be condoned and if their claims should be admitted despite being filed after the stipulated period.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeals were dismissed as the appellants failed to adequately explain the 369-day delay in filing their claims. The court found no merit in the appeals, emphasizing the importance of timely claims in CIRP proceedings.

Law Points

  • Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
  • belated claims
  • condonation of delay
  • fraudulent transactions
  • consideration under contract law
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (10) 8

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1122, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129 of 2026

2026-10-14

Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Naresh Salecha

Mr. Nitendra Sharma, Mr. Kunal Vashisht, Mr. K.M. Srishthi Kumari, Ms. Ishika Singh, Mr. Aditya Madaan, Mr. Rahul Narula

Reena Aggarwal, Arpit Agarwal, Anil Kumar Agarwal

Logix Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeals against dismissal of applications for acceptance of belated claims in CIRP.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought admission of their belated claims and condonation of delay.

Filing Reason

Claims were filed 369 days late due to alleged misunderstanding regarding the necessity of separate claims.

Previous Decisions

NCLT dismissed the applications citing insufficient cause for delay.

Issues

Whether the delay in filing claims can be condoned. Whether the claims should be admitted despite being filed after the stipulated period.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that they were misled regarding the necessity of filing separate claims. Respondents contended that the claims were based on fraudulent transactions and that the appellants were aware of the CIRP proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the delay in filing claims was not justified and that the claims were based on transactions that appeared fraudulent, thus not warranting condonation of delay.

Judgment Excerpts

The delay of 369 days which has occurred in filing the instant appeal is not deliberate or willful but has occurred only due to the wrong advice given by the Counsel of the Appellant. The appellants have miserably failed to explain the delay of 369 days which has occurred in filing the claim and it is not appearing a simple case of home buyers.

Procedural History

The appeals were filed against the NCLT's order dismissing the appellants' applications for belated claims. The NCLT had previously allowed claims for other units filed by the appellants, indicating their awareness of the CIRP proceedings.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 9, Section 66
  • Indian Contract Act, 1872: Section 2(d), Section 62, Section 63
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal Against Grant of Probate in Succession Act Case — Appellants Not Impleaded as Parties in Probate Proceedings. The Court held that appellants who were not parties to the probate proceedings cannot maintain an...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Union of India in Armed Forces Pension Case — Upholds Right to Pension for Officer Who Voluntarily Resigned After Qualifying Service. Army Officer's Voluntary Resignation Is Not a Ground for Automatic Forfeiture of...