APTEL Dismisses Global Energy's Bid to Restore Appeal, Finds 421-Day Delay After CIRP Closure Unexplained

APTEL refused to condone a 421-day delay in restoring an electricity appeal, holding the Successful Resolution Applicant failed to show sufficient cause after the moratorium ended.

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) on 5 May 2026 dismissed two interlocutory applications filed by the nominee of the Monitoring Committee of Global Energy Private Limited (GEPL) — one seeking restoration of Appeal No. 88 of 2017 and the other seeking condonation of a 421-day delay in filing that restoration application. The appeal itself had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 12 February 2024, after GEPL went through Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and repeatedly failed to appear before the Tribunal. The bench held that the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) had not furnished a convincing or credible explanation for the prolonged delay that persisted well after the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 came to an end. With the condonation application dismissed, the restoration application was rendered infructuous, and Appeal No. 88 of 2017 remains dismissed.

The Original Dispute and the Road to Dismissal

GEPL, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in electricity trading, had filed Appeal No. 88 of 2017 before APTEL challenging an order dated 16 November 2016 passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) in Case No. 186 of 2014. MERC had partly allowed GEPL's petition in that case. Respondent No. 2, Tata Power Company Limited – Distribution, is a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 operating in Maharashtra.

When the appeal came up on 22 January 2020, counsel for GEPL informed the Tribunal that the company had been admitted into CIRP and sought time, stating that no instructions were forthcoming. The NCLT, Mumbai had admitted GEPL into CIRP by order dated 2 December 2019. Over the following years, the matter saw repeated changes in management due to successive appointments and failures of Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs). A Resolution Professional recommended by the Committee of Creditors was eventually appointed on 3 August 2022.

On 5 February 2024, the Tribunal recorded that there was no representation on behalf of GEPL and directed the matter to be posted for dismissal. On 12 February 2024, with no appearance again, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Restoration Applications and the Applicant's Case

Ms. Bhumika Shah, the nominee appointed by the Monitoring Committee, filed IA No. 1759 of 2025 seeking restoration of the appeal and IA No. 1760 of 2025 seeking condonation of the delay in filing the restoration application. The Tribunal treated the condonation application as a threshold question, since its outcome would determine whether the restoration application could be considered at all.

The applicant's case rested on several grounds. The resolution plan was approved by NCLT on 3 July 2024, with a corrected order issued on 27 August 2024. The applicant contended that the limitation period for filing the restoration application commenced on 28 August 2024 and expired on 27 September 2024, placing the delay at 421 days from the date of the corrected NCLT order to the filing of the applications on 21 November 2025.

The applicant attributed the delay to the RP's failure to hand over complete records — including documents relating to the pending appeal — despite emails dated 10 July 2024 and a letter dated 22 July 2024. It was submitted that the SRA became aware of the dismissal only through independent research after assuming control, and that the Monitoring Committee was informed on 9 July 2025 about multiple dismissals during CIRP. The applicant also cited ill health of the SRA as a contributing factor, and argued that the pending claims were valuable assets whose non-restoration would cause irreparable harm contrary to the objectives of the IBC. Reliance was placed on Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 for a liberal approach to “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Tata Power's Objections

Respondent No. 2, Tata Power, contested the applications on multiple grounds. It argued that under Article 122 of the Limitation Act, the prescribed period for filing a restoration application is 30 days from the date of dismissal. Excluding the moratorium period up to 3 July 2024, the limitation expired on 2 August 2024. On that calculation, the delay was 474 days, not 421.

Tata Power pointed to an email dated 28 March 2025 from the nominee of the Secured Financial Creditor to the SRA, which placed the onus of delay on the SRA for failing to create an equitable mortgage as required under the resolution plan — a condition whose non-fulfilment had itself delayed the handover of management and records. It was submitted that the SRA could not take advantage of its own default.

On the moratorium argument, Tata Power relied on Hafeez ur Rahman & Ors. v. S.A. Rawther Spices Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1851, contending that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC applies only to proceedings against the corporate debtor, not to proceedings initiated by it. Since GEPL had filed the appeal, the moratorium could not justify non-prosecution.

Tata Power also pointed out that an NCLT order dated 14 June 2023 in IA No. 3164 of 2022 had directed the suspended Board of Directors to cooperate with the RP, indicating that GEPL was not entirely incapacitated from providing instructions in pending litigations. No action had been taken against the RP for alleged lapses, which Tata Power said showed that such claims were an afterthought.

APTEL's Analysis: Delay Post-Moratorium Remains Unexplained

The bench, in an order authored by Technical Member Mr. Ajay Talegaonkar, accepted that the period up to the NCLT's approval of the resolution plan would ordinarily be condoned, since the SRA and Monitoring Committee were not in the picture until then. However, even accepting the applicant's own calculation of 421 days from 28 August 2024, the Tribunal found the delay inordinate and turned to whether sufficient cause had been shown.

On the IRP and RP failures, the Tribunal held that the entire narrative of successive IRP appointments and management changes pertained to the period before the NCLT order and was therefore irrelevant to the question at hand. The authorities cited on the scheme and objectives of the IBC — including New Delhi Municipal Council v. Minosha India Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 384 and Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, (2023) 1 SCC 472 — were found inapplicable, as none of them dealt with condonation of delay in restoration proceedings or diluted the requirement of demonstrating sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

On the document handover issue, the Tribunal noted the email of 28 March 2025 placing responsibility on the SRA for failing to create the equitable mortgage. The bench declined to adjudicate where the fault lay, but found considerable weight in Tata Power's submission that if the RP was not discharging duties, the correct course was to approach the NCLT. The failure to do so led the Tribunal to conclude that the restoration applications were, at best, an afterthought.

On the claim that the SRA was unaware of the appeal and dismissal, the Tribunal found it “intriguing” that despite numerous dates and details being furnished, the applicant had not disclosed the specific date on which the SRA actually became aware of the appeal. The bench observed that independent research into pending litigations could and should have been conducted immediately upon approval of the resolution plan.

The ill-health plea was rejected. No medical records, specific ailment, or timeline had been placed on record. The Tribunal relied on L.K. Kaul v. Pradeep Kumar Khanna, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 6640, which held that a party cannot claim condonation as a matter of right without offering explanation, and that non-filing within the prescribed period creates a valuable right in favour of the other party. The bench added that the application had been filed by the representative of the Monitoring Committee, not the SRA personally — so even if the SRA was indisposed, nothing prevented the Monitoring Committee from approaching the Tribunal in time.

The reliance on Reliance Naval and Engineering Limited v. Dharmesh Rasikbhai Sondigara, 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 2224, where a 307-day delay in a CIRP context was condoned, was distinguished. In that case, the proceedings sought to be restored were against the corporate debtor and involved a payout that the SRA had not known about when submitting the resolution plan. In the present case, restoration could result in additional revenue not envisaged at the time of plan submission — a materially different situation. The Tribunal also noted a live controversy about who was responsible for the document handover delay, which it was not in a position to resolve.

Outcome

IA No. 1760 of 2025, seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration application, was dismissed for want of sufficient cause. As a consequence, IA No. 1759 of 2025 for restoration of the appeal did not survive. Appeal No. 88 of 2017 accordingly remains dismissed for non-prosecution. The Tribunal clarified that its observations were without prejudice to, and without expressing any opinion on, the merits of the original appeal.