Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
A Rajendra – Appellant
Versus
Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.11070 - 11071 of 2024 (@ Diary No. 10029 of 2024)
Decided On : 04-04-2025
(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 61 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Appeal – Period of limitation – Any party which is aggrieved by decision of NCLT can file appeal before NCLAT – Statutory time limit of 30 days within which appeal can be preferred, is extendable by 15 days and not beyond that – Restrictions with regard to allowing extension in the provisions stipulated is cloaked in such a manner that provisions have to be strictly followed – This period cannot be claimed as a matter of right for extension of limitation rather it is laced with satisfaction at end of NCLAT upon having shown sufficient cause – Discretion has further been circumscribed and not merely left at whims and fancy of NCLAT – Extension of period so provided for has to be strictly construed and has not to be exercised in a liberal manner which highlights legislative intent which has to be given effect to. (Paras 13 and 14)
(B) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India ((Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 – Regulation 22 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 61 – Appeal – Bar of limitation – appeal shall be accompanied by the certified copy of the impugned order – Limitation starts from date of pronouncement of Order and not from date Order is made available to parties – Scheme of Section 61 of IBC, 2016 does not contain condition for commencement of period of limitation only after obtaining a certified copy of Order, thereby refuting justification of non-availability of certified copy of Order offered for delay in filing appeal – Litigant has to file its appeal under Section 61(2) within 30 days which can be extended up to a period of 15 days, and no more, upon showing sufficient cause – A slate of interpretation of procedural rules cannot be used to defeat substantive objective of legislation which is prescribed in a time frame – Period of limitation for filing appeal having been laid down and proviso thereto limiting exercise up to a distance for condoning delay mandatorily has to be adhered to – Mandate of Rule 22(2) of NCLAT Rules has to be complied with which requires certified copy to be annexed along with appeal which binds a litigant under IBC – Appellant having failed to apply for certified copy renders appeal filed before NCLAT as clearly barred by limitation. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20)
(C) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 12(2) – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 – Regulation 22 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 61 – Appeal – Limitation – Incident which triggers limitation to commence is date of pronouncement of Order and in case of non-pronouncement of Order when hearing concludes, date on which Order is pronounced or uploaded on Website – However, where judgment was pronounced in open Court, period of limitation starts running from that very day – However, appellant is entitled to seek relief under Section 12(2) of Limitation Act for excluding period during which certified copy was under preparation on application preferred by that party – There is no question of moving application for condonation of delay when no application for obtaining a certified copy of order has been filed – Exemption from filing of certified copy cannot be claimed as a matter of right in terms of statutory requirements of Rules – Benefit of Section 12(2) of Limitation Act is available only on application for grant of certified copy of Order having been filed till date of preparation of certified copy – Since no such steps have been taken by appellant for applying certified copy, appeal was beyond limitation – Appeals as preferred by appellant need to be dismissed as they were filed beyond 30 days and no steps have been taken by appellant to seek certified copy of order – Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing application for condonation of delay. (Paras 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals have been preferred against Order dated 18.01.2024 passed by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) where appeals preferred by appellant stand dismissed as a consequence of dismissal of applications of condonation of delay on even date.
Findings of Court:
Other reasons as has been assigned by Appellate Tribunal for rejecting application for condonation is clearly borne out from pleading and facts which do not call for any interference in present appeals.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Key Points: - The statutory period to file an appeal before NCLAT is 30 days, extendable by up to 15 days upon sufficient cause, and not beyond that (IBC Section 61(2) and accompanying discussion) (!) (!) (!) - The period of limitation starts from the date of pronouncement of the order; if the order is pronounced in open court, the period starts that day; if not pronounced, it starts from the date of pronouncement or uploading on the website (IBC Section 61 and related rulings) (!) (!) (!) - The requirement to annex a certified copy with the appeal (Rule 22(2) of NCLAT Rules) is mandatory; failure to obtain/apply for a certified copy can render an appeal clearly barred by limitation (p_16, p_20) - Exemption from filing a certified copy or condonation of delay is not a matter of right; the Appellate Tribunal must be satisfied with sufficient cause, and delay cannot be condoned beyond the 15-day extension (p_6] (!) (!) [p_20) - In the cited judgments, appeals filed beyond the permitted period and without certified copies were dismissed; condonation petitions were rejected (p_11] (!) (!) [p_30) - The court reaffirmed the primacy of IBC provisions over Companies Act in timing for appeals and the necessity of strict adherence to Section 61(2) and related rules (p_17] (!)
JUDGMENT :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. These appeals have been preferred against the Order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “NCLAT”) where appeals preferred by the appellant herein stand dismissed as a consequence of dismissal of the applications of condonation of delay on the even date.
2. Two appeals were preferred before the NCLAT against two separate orders passed on 20.07.2023 by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “NCLT”) where an application filed by the appellant herein who is the shareholder and suspended Managing Director of Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Limited (Corporate Debtor) under Section 60(5) read with Section 35(1)(N) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”) seeking a direction to the respondent(s) to place the Resolution Plans submitted by him before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for consideration along with the other Resolution Plan and for staying the voting results on the Resolution Plan which was dismissed and another application preferred by Respondent No. 1, Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor (hereinafter referred to as “RP”) under Section 30(6) and 31(1) of the IBC read with regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 in short regulations for approval of the Resolution Plan dated 10.01.2023 of consortium Respondent No. 5 herein had been allowed.
3. It needs to be noted here at this stage that the appeals were preferred without any application for condonation of delay by the appellant herein with a declaration in Paragraph 6 of the grounds of appeal that the same is within the period specified in Section 61 of the IBC. Upon notice having been issued to the respondents in the appeals, objection was raised by the respondents to the effect that the appeals were beyond the period of limitation, applications for condonation of delay were preferred in both the appeals.
4. Since the first appeal had been filed along with free certified copy, which, on being ready and became available on 01.08.2023 was made the basis to assert in the application that the appeal was within limitation whereas in the application in the other appeal, it was asserted that the period of limitation would begin from the date of knowledge of the contents of the Order which was made available to the appellant by the ‘RP’ on 07.08.2023, therefore the appeal was within limitation. Although it was mentioned that the copies have been applied for by instructing the counsel, but no proofs thereof have been submitted rather at a subsequent stage it is admitted as a matter of fact that the appellant has not applied for the certified copy of any of the Orders.
5. The NCLAT, Chennai proceeded to decide the question with regard to the period of limitation and the justification which is sought to have been given by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeals as also the mis-statement made in the ground of appeal and dismissed the same. The reasons for the same were that the appellant is guilty of suppression of correct facts and making wrong averments in para 6 and 17 of the grounds of appeal where it is asserted that the appeals have been preferred within the time as specified under the statute. The factum with regard to the certified copy having been applied for by the appellant has also been informed to be not correct and therefore the application preferred in the second appeal for dispensing with the certified copy has also been stated to be a mis-statement apart from the fact that the appellant had taken a totally new stand in the application for condonation of delay which is contrary to the stand taken in the grounds of appeal. The applications for condonation of delay were therefore dismissed leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, although on fact
(1) Appeal – Period of limitation – Any party which is aggrieved by decision of NCLT can file appeal before NCLAT – Statutory time limit of 30 days within which appeal can be preferred, is extendable....
The NCLAT cannot condone delays beyond the statutory maximum of 45 days under the IBC, emphasizing strict adherence to limitation periods in insolvency processes.
(1) Appeal is a creature of statute – There is a fundamental distinction between right to file a suit and right to file an appeal.(2) Appeal against order passed in miscellaneous application in a liq....
Appeal – Limitation – Though National Company Law Appellate Tribunal is clothed with powers to exempt and to extend time under Rules 14 and 15 of NCLAT Rules respectively, such powers cannot be exerc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of clarity and consistency in administrative guidance, particularly regarding the computation of limitation for filing an appeal. Th....
Appeal – Limitation stops running on e-filing of appeal before NCLAT and not on presentation of physical copy – Date on which limitation begins to run is intrinsically linked to date of pronouncement....
Limitation for IBC appeal under Section 61 commences from NCLT order's open court pronouncement date in parties' presence, not portal upload; delay beyond 45 days non-condonable regardless of certifi....
The court established that free certified copies and those obtained for a fee are treated equally for appeal purposes under the IBC and relevant rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
