Tribunal holds that a wrongly filed appeal under Section 61 of the IBC cannot extend limitation for a fresh appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act
New Delhi, Sept. 18, 2026: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed two connected company appeals filed by Anjaniputra Ispat Ltd., holding that the challenge to a company court order was hopelessly barred by limitation.
A Bench comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial), and Arun Baroka, Member (Technical), ruled that the appellant had initially filed its challenge under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, even though the impugned order arose from proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that such an appeal was void ab initio and could not be treated as a valid proceeding for the purpose of saving limitation.
The dispute arose from an order dated September 8, 2025. The appellant first approached the NCLAT on November 20, 2025, invoking Section 61 of the IBC and seeking condonation of delay. Later, after realizing that the remedy lay under Section 421 of the Companies Act, the appellant sought permission to convert the appeal. On January 29, 2026, the Tribunal allowed conversion by amendment of the memo, but did not grant any relief on the request for condonation of delay. Instead of amending the existing appeal, the appellant filed a fresh appeal under Section 421 on January 30, 2026.
The NCLAT held that the fresh appeal had to be independently tested on limitation from the date of the impugned order. Since Section 421(3) provides a self-contained limitation scheme of 45 days, with a further condonable period of only 45 days, the appeal filed on January 30, 2026 was beyond the maximum permissible period. The Tribunal also rejected the appellant’s reliance on Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, stating that it does not apply where the statute itself contains a complete limitation code.
The Bench further clarified that the order permitting “conversion” of the appeal did not amount to a judicial transfer of proceedings. Drawing a distinction between “transfer” and “transformation,” the Tribunal observed that transfer under Section 434 of the Companies Act may preserve continuity of proceedings, but conversion from one statutory remedy to another does not. According to the Tribunal, the appellant’s fresh Section 421 appeal amounted to a new proceeding with a fresh birth, not a continuation of the earlier defective appeal.
The Tribunal also distinguished the judgments cited by the appellant, including UltraTech Cement Ltd. v. Maxout Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. and Forech India Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., noting that those cases involved transfer of proceedings, unlike the present case, which involved a mistaken invocation of jurisdiction followed by an attempt to transform the appeal into one under a different statute.
Concluding that the appeal was filed 53 days late even under Section 421, and 54 days beyond the maximum condonable period, the NCLAT rejected the delay condonation application and dismissed both appeals.
Bottom Line :
Companies Act, 2013 Section 421(3) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Section 61 Appeal wrongly filed under Section 61 of I&B Code against order passed in company proceedings cannot get continuity of limitation by later conversion/transformation into appeal under Section 421 of Companies Act, Section 14 of Limitation Act not applicable where limitation under both statutes is self-contained - Conversion permitted by amendment does not amount to transfer of proceedings - Fresh appeal under Section 421 filed beyond prescribed and condonable period liable to be dismissed.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 421(3), Companies Act, 2013; Section 61(2), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 434, Companies Act, 2013; Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963; Section 238A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
