National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Allows Appeal in Insolvency Case Due to Miscalculation of Limitation Period. The Tribunal found that the exclusion of time due to COVID-19 was not properly accounted for, allowing the application to be within the limitation period.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from an order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, which dismissed the application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Appellant, M/s Vardhman Cables and Conductors, on the grounds of limitation. The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority incorrectly treated 02.12.2018 as the date of default for the entire claim, failing to consider that the claim arose from 13 separate invoices issued between 02.10.2018 and 09.06.2020. The Appellant argued that the dismissal was based on a cryptic order that did not adequately address the limitation issue. The Respondent, M/s Elecon Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., maintained that the application was rightly dismissed as it was filed after the limitation period had expired. The Tribunal analyzed the limitation period, noting that the Adjudicating Authority had not properly accounted for the exclusion of time due to the COVID-19 pandemic as directed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal concluded that the balance period of limitation should have been extended, allowing the application to be filed within the permissible time frame. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and restored the application for adjudication on merits.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Limitation Period - Calculation of Limitation - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 - The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application as barred by limitation, considering the date of default as 02.12.2018. The Tribunal found that the exclusion of time due to COVID-19 was not properly accounted for, leading to the conclusion that the application was indeed within the limitation period. Held that the impugned order was erroneous and the application should be restored for adjudication on merits (Paras 28-41).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was within the period of limitation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and restored the application for adjudication on merits, directing parties to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 2026-10-14.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy
  • Limitation Period
  • Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
  • Exclusion of Time
  • Operational Debt
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (10) 65

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2285 of 2024

2026-10-07

Indevar Pandey, Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Arun Baroka

Mr. Mayank Sapre, Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Mr. Abhishek Samant

Praveen Mangilal Jain

M/s Elecon Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against dismissal of application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Remedy Sought

Restoration of the application for adjudication on merits.

Filing Reason

Dismissal of the application on grounds of limitation.

Previous Decisions

The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application as barred by limitation.

Issues

Whether the application was filed within the limitation period Whether the exclusion of time due to COVID-19 was properly applied

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority erred in calculating the limitation period. The Respondent contended that the date of default could not be altered to circumvent the limitation bar.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority's interpretation of the limitation period was erroneous, particularly regarding the exclusion of time due to COVID-19, which should have been accounted for in determining the application’s timeliness.

Judgment Excerpts

The impugned order is hereby Dismissed. No Order as to costs. The application filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the Code was well within the limitation period.

Procedural History

The Appellant filed an application under Section 9 on 17.11.2022, which was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on 08.10.2024 on grounds of limitation. The Appellant then appealed against this dismissal.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 9
  • Limitation Act, 1963: Section 18
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Cognizance Against Appellants in Criminal Case Due to Lack of Authority. Judicial Magistrate's Modification of Cognizance Order Found Impermissible Under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Abkari Act Case — Upholds Conviction. The court upheld the conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act but modified the sentence to one year of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 considering the time ela...