Three-Day Appeal Delay Deemed Condoned Due To Registry Error; NCLAT Refuses To Recall Insolvency Admission Against Akshay Techforge
Sangeetha Prathap
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has held that a short delay of three days in filing an insolvency appeal stood effectively condoned due to an error on the part of the Registry, and therefore refused to recall its earlier order admitting insolvency proceedings against Akshay Techforge Private Limited.
The order was passed on December 19, 2025, by a coram comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member). The Tribunal dismissed a recall application filed by Akshay Techforge and upheld its earlier judgment dated May 23, 2025, whereby it had admitted a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The dispute has its origins in insolvency proceedings initiated by Advantagesai Projects Private Limited. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai had initially dismissed the insolvency application on February 9, 2023, holding that the transaction between the parties was in the nature of a sale-purchase arrangement and not a financial loan.
However, on appeal, the NCLAT reversed this finding. The Appellate Tribunal held that the real intention behind the transaction was repayment of a loan and not transfer of property. It observed that the funds were advanced to clear the corporate debtor’s outstanding bank liabilities and that the property involved in the arrangement was intended only as security. On this basis, the insolvency petition was admitted.
Following this decision, Akshay Techforge moved a recall application before the NCLAT, contending that the appeal itself was barred by limitation. The company argued that the appeal had been filed beyond the statutory period of thirty days prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Since no formal application for condonation of delay had been listed or allowed, it was contended that the appellate tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and that its admission order was liable to be recalled.
Opposing the recall application, Advantagesai Projects submitted that the delay was only three days after excluding the time taken to obtain the certified copy of the NCLT order. It was further explained that a delay-condonation application had initially been prepared and served, but the NCLAT Registry had directed its removal after incorrectly recording that the appeal had been filed within the prescribed limitation period. It was also pointed out that Akshay Techforge had not raised any objection regarding limitation when the appeal was originally heard and decided.
Accepting this explanation, the NCLAT observed that there was a genuine mistaken belief arising from an inadvertent error on the part of the Registry. The Tribunal held that even assuming a delay existed, it fell well within the statutorily permissible grace period of fifteen days beyond the initial limitation period.
The coram observed that “the delay, if any, was within the grace/condonable period of 15 days, beyond the statutory period of 30 days,” and therefore did not affect the maintainability of the appeal.
The Tribunal also rejected the contention that delay cannot be condoned unless a written application is formally filed and allowed. Relying on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, it held that filing of a written application is not an inflexible requirement in every case, particularly where the facts clearly establish that the delay is minor and adequately explained.
Also Read: NCLT Bengaluru Sanctions Merger of Amazon India’s Logistics Arm With Marketplace Unit
The NCLAT further held that the recall application was, in substance, an attempt to reopen and re-argue the appeal on merits. It found no jurisdictional defect or violation of law in its earlier order admitting the insolvency proceedings. Accordingly, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the recall application and refused to interfere with its earlier order, thereby allowing the corporate insolvency resolution process against Akshay Techforge Private Limited to continue.
Appearance
For Appellant: Advocates Anshuman Sahni, Dhaval Deshpande, Amir Arsiwale, and Neha Arya
For Respondents: Senior Advocate Pinky Anand, with Advocates Tanisha S, and Neejoleeka Purty
Cause Title: Advantagesai Projects Pvt Ltd v. Akshay Techforge Pvt Ltd
Case No: IA No. 5206 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 501/2023
Coram: Judicial Member Justice Yogesh Khanna, Technical Member Ajai Das Mehrotra
