'IBC appeals cannot cross 45-day limit', NCLAT says while rejecting developer director’s plea

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has reiterated that insolvency proceedings are governed by strict timelines and an appeal against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) must ordinarily be filed within 30 days. While the appellate tribunal can condone a delay in appropriate cases, that discretion extends only for another 15 days and cannot be exercised beyond the statutory outer limit of 45 days.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and technical member Arun Baroka made the observation while rejecting an appeal filed by Sunil Kumar Dahiya, suspended director of Vigneshwara Developers Pvt Ltd, against the revival of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) involving the company. The bench said an appeal filed after the initial 30-day period can be considered only if it falls within the additional 15-day condonable window and the appellant establishes sufficient grounds for the delay.

Delay crosses limit

The Principal Bench of the NCLT in New Delhi had on May 21, 2026 directed the revival of insolvency proceedings against Vigneshwara Developers. The corporate insolvency case had originally been admitted in 2019 but was subsequently kept in abeyance following a Scheme of Arrangement between creditors and Dahiya. After the arrangement failed, the NCLT revived the CIRP, appointed a new Interim Resolution Professional and directed that fresh claims be invited.

NCLAT recorded that the May 21 order had been uploaded and made publicly available on the same day. According to NCLT records cited by the respondents, a public announcement regarding revival of the insolvency proceedings was also issued on May 23. Dahiya, however, maintained that he became aware of the order only on June 2, contending that he was not a party to the underlying application and that the order had not been directly communicated to him.

Explanation fails test

Dahiya said he applied to the NCLT Registry for a certified copy of the order on June 12 but claimed that officials were initially unable to trace records because the matter was several years old. He eventually filed his appeal along with an application seeking exclusion of time on July 18.

The appellate tribunal was not persuaded by the explanation. Calculating the period from the NCLT’s May 21 order to the filing of the appeal on July 18, it found that the challenge had crossed the maximum permissible period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code — 30 days for filing an appeal and a further 15 days within which a delay can be condoned. The bench also found Dahiya’s explanation inadequate, describing parts of his submissions as factually incorrect and misleading.

IBC timelines reinforced

The respondents had additionally referred to Dahiya’s previous imprisonment over allegations involving homebuyers and pending proceedings by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office and Enforcement Directorate while arguing that he had contributed to delays affecting the project. The tribunal, however, ultimately disposed of the matter on the question of limitation.

Holding that sufficient cause had not been established and that the appeal had crossed the statutory deadline, NCLAT dismissed it as not maintainable and passed no order on costs. The ruling reinforces the IBC’s emphasis on speed: once the maximum appeal window expires, the appellate tribunal cannot extend the deadline merely on equitable grounds, even where an appellant offers an explanation for approaching it late.