The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai recently ruled that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is a "self-contained and in built legislation," and provisions of the Limitation Act must give way to the limitation period prescribed under IBC [M/s Platinum Rent A Car v M/s Quest Offices]. .In a judgment passed on January 12, a bench of Justices M Venugopal and Shreesha Merla refused to condone a delay of 55 days in filing of appeal by the appellant-company, Platinum Rent A Car.Platinum told the NCLAT that it was a party to the proceedings before the Bengaluru bench of the NCLT. It said that the company, Quest Offices had filed a petition under Section of the IBC for initiating a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Platinum, its corporate debtor. On June 8, 2020, the Bengaluru bench, the Adjudicating Authority in the case, admitted Platinum into the CIRP over the default of a sum of ₹10.95 crore. The counsel for Platinum said that the corporate debtor wished to file an appeal before the NCLAT, Chennai against the June 8 order. It, therefore, applied for a certified copy of the NCLT's order on June 8 itself. However, it received the order copy only on July 26 and was, therefore, able to file its appeal before the NCLAT only on August 3, 2022, on the 55th day since, the Bengaluru bench's order. It, therefore, approached the NCLAT seeking that such delay be condoned since it had been caused by the delay in procuring the certified order copy. The company's counsel also said that the Limitation Act provides for condonation of delay in cases such as the present. .The NCLAT, however, said that it did not have the power to condone a delay exceeding a period of 45 days, which was the maximum extension period provided under Section 61 of the IBC. "Be that as it may, the ‘Appellate Tribunal’ has no ‘power’ to condone the ‘Delay’ after 30 + 15 = ‘45 Days’ and in the instant Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.448/2022 came to be filed on 55th day, which is beyond the ‘permissible limit’, provided under the ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016’. This ‘Tribunal’, is not to extend its ‘Judicial arm of generosity,' considering the fact that the ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016’, is a self-contained and inbuilt one," the order said. The NCLAT went on to say that all procedural formalities enshrined under the IBC, including the time limit, must be followed in true letter and spirit for, "speed" was "of the essence" of the IBC, 2016. The NCLAT also said that invoking Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 that excludes from the limitation period, the time taken to acquire a copy of the judgement, will not yield any relief to the appellant in the present case since Section 238 of IBC provides that the Code had an "overriding effect" over provisions of the Limitation Act. "Also an invocation of Section 12 of the ‘Limitation Act’, 1963, will be of no assistance to the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’ because of the ‘overriding effect’ of the ‘ingredients of Section 238 of the ‘Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016'," the NCLAT held..Advocate V Nallasenapathy appeared for Platinum.Advocate Aishwarya, for R&P Partners appeared for the respondent M/s Quest Offices.