# Harish Shah & Ors. vs. Mr. Ramakrishnan Sadasivan, Resolution Professional of M/s. Lokaa Developer Pvt. Ltd. > NCLAT judgment dated 13 Apr 2026. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLAT-00033. This case involves two Company Appeals (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 54/2026 and No. 56/2026, along… - **Court:** NCLAT - **Order date:** 13 Apr 2026 - **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLAT-00033 - **Category:** IBC - **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/harish-shah-ors-vs-mr-ramakrishnan-sadasivan-resolution-professional-of-ms-lokaa-eh36v ## Summary ### Background This case involves two Company Appeals (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 54/2026 and No. 56/2026, along with interlocutory applications (IA No. 135/2026 and IA No. 142/2026) seeking condonation of a 14-day delay in filing the appeals. The appellant in CA No. 54/2026, identified as an unsecured Financial Creditor/Home Buyer of M/s. Lokaa Developer Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), challenged an Impugned Order dated 28.10.2025. This order had approved a Resolution Plan under which the appellant was denied a flat or a definite payout for their admitted claim related to a double-booked flat, receiving only speculative recoveries, unlike 192 other home buyers. The appellant contended that they initially voted for the plan based on incomplete information but later withdrew support. ## Facts Two Company Appeals, CA(AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 54/2026 and CA(AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 56/2026, were filed before the NCLAT. Interlocutory Applications IA No. 135/2026 and IA No. 142/2026 were filed to seek condonation of a 14-day delay in preferring the Company Appeals. The Appellant in CA No. 54/2026 is an unsecured Financial Creditor / Home Buyer of the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Lokaa Developer Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant's claim regarding Flat No. 2001 in the 'M1' Project was admitted by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. The said flat was double booked, and the Appellant was denied any flat or definite payout under the approved Resolution Plan, receiving only speculative and uncertain recoveries. 192 other similarly placed home buyers had received their flats under the same Resolution Plan. … ## Issues and analysis ### Issue 1: Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and … **Ratio:** The limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and … **Reasoning:** The NCLAT relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including V Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat … **Interpretation:** Section 61(2) of the IBC is a self-contained provision regarding limitation, … **Application:** The impugned order was pronounced on 28.10.2025. The appeals were filed on … ## Parties - **Judges:** Sharad Kumar…; Jatindranath… - **Appellants:** Harish…; Avantika P…; +5 more - **Respondents:** M/s. Lokaa…; Ramakrishnan…; +1 more - **Other parties:** Insolvency and…; Limitation…; +6 more ## Timeline - **2025-10-28 — Pronouncement of…**: The Ld. Adjudicating Authority pronounced the impugned order, approving the Resolution… - **2025-10-30 — Order Uploaded on…**: The impugned order was uploaded on… --- 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/harish-shah-ors-vs-mr-ramakrishnan-sadasivan-resolution-professional-of-ms-lokaa-eh36v