Nitendra Kumar Tomer, Suspended Director, Ambro Asia Private Limited v. Unox S.P.A. 2026 INSC 356- S.61 IBC - Limitation
"no discretion is left in the NCLAT to condone delay beyond the prescribed condonable period of 15 days"
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 61- The limitation prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Code assumes importance. In terms thereof, an appeal before the NCLAT must be filed within the time frames fixed thereunder. The normal period of limitation prescribed under Section 61(2) is 30 days but the proviso thereto permits the NCLAT to condone the delay of up to 15 days, if sufficient cause is shown for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of 30 days. Notably, no discretion is left in the NCLAT to condone delay beyond the prescribed condonable period of 15 days. (Para 7) [Context: The Supreme Court held that an appeal filed before the NCLAT in the name of the corporate debtor by a suspended director, after appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional, was a wholly incompetent appeal and not a mere curable defect. Since limitation under Section 61(2) of the IBC is strict and only a delay of up to 15 days is condonable, the NCLAT erred in allowing amendment of the memo of appeal in August 2025 so as to convert that incompetent appeal into a maintainable one in the suspended director’s own name, long after expiry of limitation. ]
Case Info
Case Information Extracted
Case name and neutral citation:Nitendra Kumar Tomer, Suspended Director, Ambro Asia Private Limited v. Unox S.P.A. and another, 2026 INSC 356.
Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Judgment date: 10 April 2026 (New Delhi).
Statutes / laws referred:Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – especially Sections 9, 16, 17(1)(a), 61(2).
Caselaws and citations referred:
- Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and another, (2006) 1 SCC 757.
- Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary, (2019) 15 SCC 628.
- Innovators Cleantech Pvt. Ltd. v. Pasari Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine NCLAT 909.
Three‑sentence brief summary
The Supreme Court held that an appeal filed before the NCLAT in the name of the corporate debtor by a suspended director, after appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional, was a wholly incompetent appeal and not a mere curable defect. Since limitation under Section 61(2) of the IBC is strict and only a delay of up to 15 days is condonable, the NCLAT erred in allowing amendment of the memo of appeal in August 2025 so as to convert that incompetent appeal into a maintainable one in the suspended director’s own name, long after expiry of limitation. Emphasising the sacrosanct nature of IBC timelines, the Court refused to go into the merits of the NCLAT’s final judgment and dismissed the Supreme Court appeal purely on these jurisdictional and limitation grounds.
