NCLAT Chennai: High Court Cannot Extend Limitation After Declining Writ; Appeals by Personal Guarantors Dismissed as Time-Barred

April 9, 2026 : The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, has ruled that a High Court cannot direct exclusion of time or condonation of delay after refusing to entertain a writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Emphasising the strict limitation framework under the Code, the Tribunal dismissed two connected appeals filed by personal guarantors as barred by limitation.

The appeals were filed by P.V. Mohammed Equbal and Ponnuvalappil Zubair challenging orders dated 27 May 2025 passed by the NCLT Kochi Bench, which had admitted insolvency proceedings against them under Section 95 of the IBC at the instance of Tata Capital Limited. Both appeals were accompanied by applications seeking condonation of delay.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed in November 2025, approximately 174 days after the impugned orders, far exceeding the statutory limitation period of 30 days, extendable by only 15 days under Section 61(2) of the Code. The appellants argued that the delay should be condoned by excluding the time spent in prosecuting writ petitions before the Kerala High Court.

It was observed that the appellants had approached the High Court on the 40th day from the date of the NCLT orders, i.e., after expiry of the prescribed limitation period. The High Court, while declining to entertain the writ petitions due to the availability of an alternative remedy, had directed that the time spent in pursuing the writ proceedings be excluded while computing limitation for filing appeals before the NCLAT.

Rejecting this approach, the Appellate Tribunal held that such exclusion was impermissible. It reasoned that the benefit of exclusion of time cannot be granted where the writ petitions themselves were filed beyond the statutory limitation period. The Tribunal underscored that parties cannot circumvent limitation by first approaching the High Court after expiry of the prescribed period and then seeking exclusion of such time.

Significantly, the Tribunal held that once a High Court declines to exercise writ jurisdiction on the ground of alternative remedy, it becomes functus officio and cannot issue directions affecting proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal. Any such direction, including one to condone delay or exclude time, would amount to interference in a statutory appellate process governed by a special law like the IBC.

Relying on its earlier decision in Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. v. Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal reiterated that the limitation framework under a special statute cannot be bypassed through writ jurisdiction.

Holding that the delay far exceeded the permissible statutory limit and that the period spent before the High Court could not be excluded, the NCLAT dismissed the appeals along with all pending interlocutory applications.

Case Details:
P.V. Mohammed Equbal v. Tata Capital Limited & Anr. (and connected appeal)
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) Nos. 17 & 18 of 2026
Coram: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member Technical)