Rejecting an appeal by a suspended director of Vigneshwara Developers Pvt Ltd against revival of insolvency proceedings against the company, a two-member bench said NCLAT in some matters may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the 30-day period but within the next 15 days, the condonable period, and not beyond that.
However, NCLAT must be “satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for not filing the appeal”, but such period “shall not exceed 15 days”, said the bench comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Arun Baroka.
The bench said the explanation for the delay offered by Sunil Kumar Dahiya, suspended director of Vigneshwara Developers, was “not a sufficient cause” and that his submissions were “factually incorrect” and misled the tribunal.
On May 21, 2026, the Principal Bench of the NCLT in New Delhi had passed the order directing revival of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Vigneshwara Developers.
The case was originally admitted in 2019 but kept in abeyance after a Scheme of Arrangement between creditors and Dahiya failed.
The order also appointed a new Interim Resolution Professional and directed fresh invitation of claims. NCLAT recorded that the order was uploaded and made public the same day.On May 23, 2026, a public announcement regarding the revival order was also made, as per NCLT records cited by the respondents.
Dahiya contended he became aware of the order only on June 2, 2026, claiming he was not a party to the underlying application and that the order was never communicated to him directly.
He claimed to have applied for a certified copy of the order on June 12, 2026 from the NCLT Registry, which he said could not immediately trace records in the years-old matter. He filed the appeal, along with an application seeking exclusion of time, on July 18, 2026.
Computing the total period, NCLAT found the appeal, filed on July 18, 2026 against the May 21, 2026 order, exceeded the outer permissible limit under Section 61(2) of the Code – 30 days plus a maximum condonable window of 15 days.
Respondents had also pointed to Dahiya’s background, including a prior prison term over allegations of fraud against homebuyers and pending SFIO and Enforcement Directorate proceedings, to argue he was responsible for stalling the project.
Holding that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay, NCLAT declared the appeal not maintainable under Section 60(2) of the Code and dismissed the memo of appeal, with no order as to costs.