# In the matter of Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited Vs. Mangesh Vitthal Kekre (RP) for Maruti Koatsu Cylinders Limited & Anr. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 286 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-10-26. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00062. This appeal arises from an impugned order dated 22 October 2019, passed by the Adjudicating…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 26 Oct 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00062
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/asset-reconstruction-company-india-limited-vs-mangesh-vitthal-kekre-98588ab9

## Summary

### Background

This appeal arises from an impugned order dated 22 October 2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Company Petition (IB) No. 118/NCLT/AHM/2018. The Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan of Corporate Debtor Maruti Koatsu Cylinders Limited under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant, Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited (ARCIL), challenged this order, primarily contesting the delay in filing the appeal.

## Facts

The Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited (ARCIL) filed an appeal against an order dated 22 October 2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, approving the Resolution Plan of Maruti Koatsu Cylinders Limited. The appeal was filed on 29 January 2020, with a delay of 52 days. ARCIL contended that the delay should be condoned because the cause of action was continuous, stemming from a letter filed before the Registrar of the NCLT on 26 November 2019, and the subsequent order dated 19 December 2019. The Respondent No. 2, the Successful Resolution Applicant, argued that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible limitation period under Section 61(2) of the IBC, which allows for a maximum delay of 15 days beyond the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and …

**Ratio:** The ratio is based on Section 61(2) of the IBC, which stipulates a 30-day period for

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Appellant's delay exceeded the condonable limit of 15 days.

…

**Interpretation:** Section 61(2) of the IBC is interpreted strictly, limiting the Appellate

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to the specific facts of the case, where

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** M. Venu…; V. P. S…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Asset Reconstructi…
- **Respondents:** Maruti Koatsu…; Mangesh Vitthal…

## Timeline

- **2018-01-01 — Company Pe…**: Company Petition (IB)…
- **2019-10-22 — Impugned…**: Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, passed the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 31 — Approval of resolution plan](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-31)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/asset-reconstruction-company-india-limited-vs-mangesh-vitthal-kekre-98588ab9