Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (Per Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial) and Arun Baroka, Member (Technical))
Order Date: 18th September, 2026
Case Overview
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) heard two interconnected appeals filed by Anjaniputra Ispat Ltd. challenging an order dated 08.09.2025 related to winding-up proceedings under Sections 433(E) and 433(F) of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant initially filed Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1874 of 2025 under Section 61 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) on 20.11.2025, which was incorrect since the impugned order arose from Companies Act proceedings. This initial appeal was accompanied by I.A. No. 7306 of 2025 seeking condonation of 53 days delay.
On 29.01.2026, the Tribunal permitted the appellant to convert this appeal to one under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 via I.A. No. 440 of 2026. However, instead of amending the existing memo as directed, the appellant filed a fresh appeal (Comp. App. (AT) No. 39 of 2026) under Section 421 on 30.01.2026, with a new delay condonation application (I.A. No. 816 of 2026). The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing the wrong appellate remedy under Section 61 of I&B Code (20.11.2025 to 29.01.2026) could be excluded when computing limitation for the Section 421 appeal.
The Tribunal analyzed the self-contained limitation provisions under both statutes: Section 61(2) of I&B Code allows a maximum 45 days (30+15 condonable), while Section 421(3) of Companies Act allows a maximum 90 days (45+45 condonable). The appellant's filing under Section 61 was itself delayed by 31 days beyond the maximum condonable period. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument for applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, distinguishing this case from judicial transfers under Section 434 of the Companies Act (as in UltraTech Cement and Forech India cases cited). The Tribunal created a legal distinction between 'transfer' (which provides continuity) and 'transformation' (which constitutes a fresh start), holding that converting an appeal from one statute to another represents a transformation where limitation must be determined afresh under the new statute.
Final Outcome
The NCLAT dismissed both appeals. Comp. App. (AT) No. 39 of 2026 and its delay condonation application (I.A. No. 816 of 2026) were rejected as the appeal was filed with a 53-day delay beyond the maximum condonable period under Section 421(3). Consequently, the original IBC appeal (Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1874 of 2025) and its delay application (I.A. No. 7306 of 2025) were also rejected. The impugned order dated 08.09.2025 thus stands unchallenged.
Topics: Appellate Limitation, Judicial Procedure, Companies Act Compliance