No Escape From 45‑Day IBC Appeal Limit Through Uploading Date or Recall: NCLAT Principal Bench

In two orders, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal refused to entertain appeals filed beyond 45 days, rejecting reliance on the uploading date of an order and on a recall application.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has refused, in two orders, to look past the outer limit of 30 days plus 15 days for appeals under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). In one, it held that limitation runs from pronouncement in open court, not from uploading; in the other, it held that a recall application cannot reopen a reasoned order refusing condonation [Ajay Singh Narania v. Harish Kant Kaushik & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3373-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC; Excel Arcade Private Limited v. Unity Small Finance Bank Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3388-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC].

Section 61(2) allows 30 days for an appeal and lets the NCLAT condone a further delay of up to 15 days on sufficient cause, but no more.

Ajay Singh Narania. Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial), wrote for a Bench with Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical). The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai dismissed the appellant’s application on 27 Mar 2026, the day it was first listed, with his counsel present. The order was uploaded on 8 Apr 2026, a certified copy was sought on 20 May 2026, and the appeal was filed on 21 May 2026.

The appellant relied on Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited (2023 INSC 1063), arguing that the matter was not listed for pronouncement. The Tribunal distinguished that case, where it was undisputed that no order was pronounced on the hearing date. Following V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited (2021), it held that limitation ran from 27 Mar 2026 and that the later uploading was immaterial. Citing Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee (2025), it held the appeal beyond its condonable jurisdiction and dismissed it.

Excel Arcade. A Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna, Officiating Chairperson, Barun Mitra, Member (Technical), who wrote the order, and Ajai Das Mehrotra, Member (Technical), heard an application to recall its order of 22 May 2026 refusing condonation. The applicant said the e‑filing portal failed on 22 Jan 2026, the last day, and it could file only on 28 Jan 2026, relying on Regional Provident Fund Commissioner‑II v. Mamta Binani (2026 INSC 1003).

Applying Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb (1999), the Tribunal held that recall lies only for patent lack of jurisdiction, fraud or collusion, a mistake of the court prejudicing a party, or ignorance that a necessary party was unserved or dead. None was shown. The order was reasoned and never challenged before the Supreme Court, unlike in Mamta Binani, and the recall application came more than four months later.

The appeal and the recall application were both dismissed, leaving the original orders in place.

2026-juristway.com-3373-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC | 2026-juristway.com-3388-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC