Authority: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Principal Bench, New Delhi

Order Date: 10 July 2026

Case Overview

This order pertains to I.A. No. 2304 of 2026 in CP (IB) No. 198 of 2026, an application filed by Advance India Projects Ltd. (Operational Creditor/Applicant) under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Applicant sought condonation of a 75-day delay in filing its main Company Petition under Section 9 of the IBC against JNB Management Private Ltd. (Corporate Debtor/Respondent).

The dispute originated from a Cooperation Agreement dated 25.05.2016, under which the Respondent was to operate and manage serviced apartments for the Applicant's real estate project. The Applicant terminated the agreement on 29.11.2022 upon discovering that a key entity, Bridgestreet Accommodations London Limited, had gone into liquidation—a fact allegedly concealed by the Respondent. The termination notice demanded a refund of an advance/signing amount of Rs. 1,83,66,246 within 15 days. According to the Applicant's own admission, the right to apply accrued, and the three-year limitation period began, on 13.12.2022 (15 days after the notice), expiring on 13.12.2025.

The Applicant, however, issued a demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC on 15.04.2025 and subsequently attempted to register the debt with the National E-Governance Services Limited (NeSL), an Information Utility (IU). The registration process faced delays from May 2025 to February 2026 due to deficiencies in documentation, including a lack of properly executed/digitally signed authority documents. A Record of Default was finally generated in February 2026, and the main Company Petition was filed on 26.02.2026—75 days after the limitation period had expired.

The Applicant's sole ground for seeking condonation was that this delay was caused by the statutory obligation to await the NeSL Record of Default, citing Regulation 20(1A) of the IBBI (Information Utilities) Regulations, 2017 and an NCLT office order dated 03.04.2023.

The Tribunal, after hearing submissions, identified key issues: the applicability of the Limitation Act, whether NeSL registration is a mandatory precondition for filing, and whether sufficient cause for delay was established.

Final Outcome

The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 2304 of 2026) and consequently dismissed the main Company Petition (IB) No. 198 of 2026 as barred by limitation. The dismissal was based on three primary findings:

1. The Limitation Act applies to IBC applications. On the Applicant's own computation, the limitation period expired on 13.12.2025, and the petition was filed 75 days late on 26.02.2026.

2. Furnishing a Record of Default from an Information Utility like NeSL is not a mandatory precondition for filing an application under Section 9 of the IBC. The Tribunal relied on settled case law, including the NCLAT's decision in Vijay Kumar Singhania v. Bank of Baroda & Anr. (upheld by the Supreme Court on 29.08.2024), which held that such a record is evidentiary and not jurisdictional.

3. The delay was attributable to the Applicant's own conduct and negligence in providing proper documentation to NeSL, which does not constitute 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Tribunal emphasized the time-bound nature of the IBC and cited Supreme Court precedents (Basawaraj & Anr., Esha Bhattacharjee, Sagufa Ahmed, Tata Steel Ltd.) stating that statutory timelines must be strictly enforced and equitable considerations cannot revive time-barred claims.

The order clarifies that the dismissal is solely on the ground of limitation and does not express any opinion on the merits of the underlying claim. The Applicant is free to pursue other available legal remedies.

  • Topics: Insolvency Law, Limitation Period, NCLT Procedure