The case involves an appeal against an impugned order where the appellant was given liberty to approach the Resolution Professional (RP). The appellant claims to have approached the RP but received no reply, causing a delay in filing the appeal.
The appellant, Shakuntla Devi Kulshrestha, filed an appeal against an order dated 21.11.2025.
The appellant claims a delay of 51 days in filing the appeal.
The appellant was given liberty to approach the Resolution Professional (RP) in the impugned order.
The appellant claims to have approached the RP but received no reply, causing the delay.
The appeal was e-filed on 10.02.2026.
The court's jurisdiction to condone delay is limited to 15 days as per Section 61(2) proviso of the IBC.
Sign in to view the parties.
The date of the impugned order where the…
The date on wh…
The case involves an appeal against an impugned order where the appellant was given liberty to approach the Resolution Professional (RP). The appellant claims to have approached the RP but received no reply, causing a delay in filing the appeal.
The appellant, Shakuntla Devi Kulshrestha, filed an appeal against an order dated 21.11.2025.
The appellant claims a delay of 51 days in filing the appeal.
The appellant was given liberty to approach the Resolution Professional (RP) in the impugned order.
The appellant claims to have approached the RP but received no reply, causing the delay.
The appeal was e-filed on 10.02.2026.
The court's jurisdiction to condone delay is limited to 15 days as per Section 61(2) proviso of the IBC.
The date of the impugned order where the…
The date on wh…