Case Details

  • Case Name: I.A. No. 235 of 2026 In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 67 of 2026
  • Parties: Appellant - Fiza Constructions (Through Its Sole Proprietor, Syed Hussain Abbas Zaidi); Respondents - Navneet Kumar Gupta & Anr.
  • Court/Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi
  • Presiding Officers: Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Indevar Pandey (Member (Technical))
  • Order Date: 22nd May, 2026
  • Impugned Order Date: 06.10.2025 (Order approving the resolution plan of the corporate debtor)
  • Appeal Filing Date: 11.12.2025 (E-filed)

Parties Involved

  • Petitioner/Appellant: Fiza Constructions, an operational creditor.
  • Respondents: Navneet Kumar Gupta (Respondent No. 1) and the Successful Resolution Applicant (Respondent No. 2). The Resolution Professional (RP) is also a key party involved in the proceedings.
  • Legal Counsel: For Appellant - Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Rana, Mr. Ajitesh Kunal, Mr. Shivanshu Srivastava. For Respondents - Mr. Gaurav Singh and Mr. Shivam Patel for R-1.

Issues / Allegations / Violations

The core issue is the condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The appellant sought to condone a delay in filing an appeal against the NCLT order dated 06.10.2025, which approved a resolution plan. The appellant, an operational creditor, claimed it was not part of the plan approval proceedings and first learned of the order via communication from the RP on 04.11.2025. The appellant contended the order was uploaded on the NCLT portal on 28.10.2025, and thus, the limitation period should be calculated from this date, making the appeal filing on 11.12.2025 within the condonable period. The respondents argued that limitation must be calculated from the order's dictation date (06.10.2025), making the appeal filed beyond the condonable period of 15 days. They cited the Supreme Court judgment in 'Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association' Vs. 'M Lalitha & Anr.' to argue that the appellant's failure to apply for a certified copy of the order was fatal to its application.

Findings & Observations

The NCLAT considered the arguments and precedents. It noted there was no dispute that the order was dictated on 06.10.2025 but was uploaded on 28.10.2025. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Angelwoods', which emphasized the obligation to apply for a certified copy under NCLT Rules but also acknowledged that an application for exemption from filing such a copy can be entertained. The appellant had filed I.A. No.236/2026 seeking such an exemption. The NCLAT found the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited' Vs. 'Yadavalli Sai Karunakar & Anr.' more directly applicable. In that case, the Supreme Court set aside an NCLAT order that had rejected a delay condonation application, accepting the appellant's explanation regarding the date of knowledge and uploading. The NCLAT also noted that Respondent No. 2 had filed a separate appeal (Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.1828/2025) against the same order, in which delay was condoned by the NCLAT on 24.11.2025 based on the same plea that the order was uploaded on 28.10.2025.

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

The NCLAT allowed the delay condonation application (I.A. No. 235/2026). The appeal was entertained without the certified copy of the order. The appellant was granted two weeks' time to place the certified copy of the order on record.

Final Ruling & Enforcement

The final ruling was to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal (Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 67/2026) was admitted and listed for hearing on 10th July, 2026.