# In the matter of Munagala Roja Harsha Vardhini vs. Vardhansmart Private Limited

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-03-15. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00577. The case involves an appeal filed by Munagala Roja Harsha Vardhini against an order passed by…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 15 Mar 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00577
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/munagala-roja-harsha-vardhini-vs-vardhansmart-private-limited-14eaecff

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal filed by Munagala Roja Harsha Vardhini against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravathi Bench, in CP (IB) No.45/7/AMR/2020. The appeal, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.23/2024, includes an application (IA No.83/2024) to condone a delay in filing the appeal. The appellant claims a delay of 12 days (or 26 days according to the Registry), while the respondent argues the delay is actually 26 days, exceeding the permissible condonation period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The appellant cites illness and the time required to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order as reasons for the delay.

## Facts

Munagala Roja Harsha Vardhini filed an appeal against an order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Amaravathi Bench. The appeal was delayed, prompting an application to condone the delay (IA No.83/2024). The NCLT order was dated 24.11.2022. The appellant claims the delay was due to illness ('Enteric Fever' and 'Hepatitis Urinary Tract Infection') between 18.11.2022 and 06.01.2023, preventing her from examining the papers and approving the 'Memorandum of Appeal'. The appellant received a 'free cost' 'certified copy of the Order' on 07.12.2022. The appeal was filed on 19.01.2023. The appellant is a resident of Tenali, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. The respondent, Vardhansmart Private Limited, argues the delay exceeds the condonable period under Section 61(2) of 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:** Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prescribes a strict timeline

…

**Reasoning:** The Tribunal reasoned that Section 61(2) of the IBC sets a strict timeline for filing

…

**Interpretation:** Section 61(2) of the IBC is interpreted as a mandatory provision that strictly

…

**Application:** In this case, the Tribunal applied the ratio of Section 61(2) of the IBC to the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** M. Venu…; Sharad Kumar…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Munagala Roja…
- **Respondents:** Vardhansmart…
- **Advocates:** T.K. Bh…; Mayan H…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **2022-11-24 — Impugned Ord…**: Date of the Impugned Order passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal' in CP (IB)…
- **2022-11-18 — Appellant's…**: Start date of the appellant's illness ('Enteric Fever' and 'Hepatitis Urinary Tract…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61(2) — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

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/munagala-roja-harsha-vardhini-vs-vardhansmart-private-limited-14eaecff