The definition of ‘Party’ under NCLT Rule 2(16) includes the words person preferring an appeal and it does not classify or subclassify the party to the proceedings | Word ‘Person Aggrieved’ used in Sec. 61 of IBC is wide enough to include within it, a party to the proceedings, as well as any other person other than the party to the proceedings – Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. Vs. Kalvakolanu Murali Krishna Prasad RP for Vaksh Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that: (i) The definition of the word “party’’ under the NCLT Rules, 2016 is quite wide and it does not stipulate that a person for the purposes of being treated as to be a party, has to be actually the party to the proceedings. Rather, the term party as defined under Rule 2(16) of the NCLT Rules of 2016, is wide enough to include within itself a person who prefers an Appeal. (ii) The definition of “Party’’, includes the word “person preferring an appeal’’, it does not classify or subclassify the party to the proceedings. (iii) A person who is preferring an Appeal under Section 61, cannot seek an exclusion from the period of limitation to prefer an Appeal, on grounds of being a person aggrieved if, he has not been diligent enough to apply for the Certified Copy within the time period of limitation under Section 61. (iv) The date of knowledge of the proceedings, cannot be taken as to be a foundation for fixing the date of commencement of the period of limitation for preferring an Appeal.

Scroll to Top