NCLAT: Judicial Custody Not Ground to Extend IBC Limitation; Dismisses Delayed Appeals in Alps Leisure Liquidation

March 27, 2026 : The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, has dismissed two appeals arising out of the liquidation proceedings of Alps Leisure Holidays Ltd., holding that judicial custody of an appellant cannot justify extension of the statutory limitation period prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The appellate tribunal, by an order dated March 27, 2026, rejected applications filed by Alpesh Vasudev Gandhi seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals against orders passed by the adjudicating authority (NCLT, Delhi).

A bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) noted that one appeal, challenging the order dated August 22, 2025, was filed with a delay of 74 days, while the second appeal, against the order dated October 10, 2025, involved a delay of 16 days.

The appellant contended that he was in judicial custody from August 13, 2025, to October 30, 2025, following conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and was therefore unable to apply for certified copies or seek legal advice within the limitation period. It was argued that this constituted “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay.

Rejecting this contention, the Tribunal held that the limitation period begins from the date of delivery of the order and cannot be suspended merely due to judicial custody. It observed that a person in custody is not precluded from exercising statutory remedies, including filing appeals.

The bench clarified that while judicial custody may explain delay within the permissible condonable period, it cannot justify condonation beyond the strict outer limit prescribed under Section 61(2) of the IBC. The provision allows an appeal to be filed within 30 days, extendable by a maximum of 15 days.

Significantly, the Tribunal also noted that in one of the appeals, the certified copy of the impugned order was applied for beyond the initial 30-day limitation period, disentitling the appellant from exclusion of time taken to obtain the copy. As a result, the actual delay exceeded even the period claimed.

Emphasising the mandatory nature of the statutory timeline, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the additional 15-day window. Consequently, both delay condonation applications were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.

Case Title: Alpesh Vasudev Gandhi v. Vinodkumar S. Shah, Liquidator of Alps Leisure Holidays Ltd.
Case Nos.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 39 & 126 of 2026
Coram: Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member)