NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Upholds Appeal in Limitation Act Case — Delay Condoned. The Appellant was granted exclusion of time spent in prior litigation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal by Vishal Ganpat Shinde, a suspended director of Gokul Sugar Industries Ltd., against an order of the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, arguing that he was unaware of the impugned order until notified by the Resolution Professional. The Appellant initially filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed, and subsequently a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, which granted liberty to appeal to the NCLAT. The core legal issue was whether the time spent in these proceedings could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Appellant contended that he acted in good faith, believing the High Court had jurisdiction. The Respondents opposed this, asserting that the Appellant was aware of the proper forum for appeal. The Tribunal analyzed the conditions for invoking Section 14, ultimately concluding that the Appellant's prior litigation was bona fide and diligent, thus allowing the exclusion of the time spent in the High Court and Supreme Court. The appeal was deemed filed within the stipulated limitation period after excluding the relevant time. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed that the appeal be listed for admission.

Headnote

A) Limitation Law - Condonation of Delay - Exclusion of Time - Limitation Act, 1963, Section 14 - The Appellant sought exclusion of time spent litigating in the High Court and Supreme Court, claiming bona fide belief in jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the time spent in these proceedings could be excluded, allowing the appeal to be considered within the stipulated limitation period (Paras 34-35).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay, excluding the time spent in the High Court and Supreme Court from the limitation period. The appeal was declared to be within the stipulated time of 30 days.

Law Points

  • Limitation
  • Condonation of Delay
  • Jurisdiction
  • Good Faith
  • Bona Fide Litigation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (10) 10

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1300 of 2026

2026-10-30

Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Naresh Salecha

Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr. Shivendra Nath Mishra, Mr. Sameer Mishra, Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Ms. Neha Aggarwal, Mr. J. Rajesh, Mr. Dhrupad Vaghani, Ms. Gayatri Mohite, Mr. Md. Arsalan Ahmed, Mr. Ashwath Reddy, Ms. Radhikha Kabra, Mr. Yashwardhan Aggarwal, Mr. Ali Abbas Masoodi, Mr. Himanshu Shembekar, Ms. Seeta Laxmy Swamy, Ms. Karunya Raghunath

Vishal Ganpat Shinde

Mohandas Chhataram

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority regarding the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Filing Reason

The Appellant claimed ignorance of the impugned order and believed the High Court had jurisdiction.

Previous Decisions

The Appellant's writ petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court, and the Supreme Court granted liberty to appeal.

Issues

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Whether the Appellant acted in good faith while pursuing remedies in the High Court and Supreme Court.

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the time spent in prior litigation should be excluded as he acted in good faith. The Respondents contended that the Appellant was aware of the proper forum and did not act bona fide.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the time spent in prior litigation could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act if the proceedings were prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence.

Judgment Excerpts

The appeal appears to have been filed within 30 days. The time spent by the Appellant before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is excluded from counting towards limitation.

Procedural History

The Appellant filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed. A Special Leave Petition was then filed in the Supreme Court, which granted liberty to appeal to the NCLAT.

Acts & Sections

  • Limitation Act, 1963: Section 14
  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 61
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals on Screening Test for Medical Officers Due to Arbitrary Standards. The Punjab Public Service Commission's imposition of minimum qualifying marks was found to be beyond its authority and inconsistent with the reservatio...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Dismisses Writ Petition for Paid Study Leave — No Policy in Place at Time of Application. The court found that the absence of a governing policy at the time of application precluded entitlement to paid leave.