NCLAT Condoned 3-Day Delay, Holds Litigant Cannot Suffer For Eight-Month Delay In Uploading NCLT Order

NCLAT Condoned 3-Day Delay, Holds Litigant Cannot Suffer For Eight-Month Delay In Uploading NCLT Order

Introduction

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has condoned a delay in filing an appeal after noting that the order of the National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi Bench was uploaded nearly eight months after its pronouncement, and that the delay attributable to the appellant was only three days. A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey allowed the condonation application filed by Pranav Varshney.

Factual Background

The impugned order in an interlocutory application arising from the insolvency proceedings of Unibera Developers Private Limited was pronounced by the NCLT on March 11, 2025. However, the order was uploaded on the tribunal website only on November 6, 2025. The appellant filed the appeal on November 9, 2025.

Procedural Background

Varshney had applied for a certified copy of the order on April 1, 2025, within the prescribed 30-day limitation period. However, he was supplied with an unrelated order on April 16, 2025.

A second request also resulted in an incorrect copy. Upon inspection, it was found that the impugned order was not available in the tribunal file. Subsequently, the appellant moved an application for rehearing on October 21, 2025. The order was eventually uploaded on November 6, 2025, following which the appeal was filed within three days.

Issues

1. Whether limitation for filing an appeal runs strictly from the date of pronouncement of the order.

2. Whether delayed uploading and non-availability of the order constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

3. Whether the appellant was responsible for the delay in filing the appeal.

Contentions

Counsel for the Resolution Professional argued that limitation runs from the date of pronouncement and relied on an earlier appellate ruling to contend that the appeal was time-barred.

The appellant submitted that despite applying for a certified copy within time, the order was not supplied and was not even available in the tribunal file, and that the appeal was filed promptly after the order was uploaded.

Tribunal’s Observations and Analysis

The NCLAT distinguished the earlier precedent relied upon by the respondent. The Tribunal observed that the appellant could not be blamed for not receiving the copy of the order despite applying within limitation. It noted that the order was first made available only on November 6, 2025, and the appeal was filed within three days thereafter. The Bench held that the delay attributable to the appellant was only three days and that sufficient cause had been shown.

Decision

The NCLAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It granted liberty to the appellant to file an amended memo of appeal within one week, issued notice to the successful resolution applicant and the monitoring committee, and listed the matter for hearing on April 8, 2026.

In this case the appellant was represented by Advocates Prithu Garg, Kanishka Sharma, Vinay Thakur, and Utkarsh Joshi. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Advocates Sumesh Dhawan, Vatsala Kak, Sagar Thakkar, and Varsha Mohanty.