1. Appeal against NCLAT order concerning the approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — challenge based on limitation and defective filing. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1178
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. And Others – Appellants
Versus
DSK Global Education And Research Pvt. Ltd. And Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10603 of 2024
Decided On : 12-08-2025
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
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 exercised so as to render Rule 22(2) thereof nugatory.
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 exercised so as to render Rule 22(2) thereof nugatory.
Subject
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law - Limitation
Act Referred
Headnote
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 61 and 62 – National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Rules 14, 15 and 22(2) – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 12 – 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 exercised so as to render Rule 22(2) thereof nugatory – Even if an appeal is entertained within initial 30 day-period without a certified copy of order, by granting exemption under Rule 14, it can only be for a limited period to enable due compliance with mandate of Rule 22(2) by filing a certified copy at least at a later date and within time stipulated by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal – Such exemption cannot be to the extent of completely dispensing with filing of a certified copy, which would annihilate clear mandate of Rule 22(2) of NCLAT Rules, which categorically uses the word ‘shall’ to emphasize that appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of order impugned. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in this appeal, filed under Section 62 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is to judgment dated 01.07.2024 passed by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [“NCLAT”], in so far as it pertains to Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1308 of 2023.
Findings of Court:
Statute peremptorily requires proper institution of an appeal in conformity with all prescribed norms and it was incumbent upon NCLAT to examine and verify as to whether respondent No. 1’s appeal was in due compliance with all such norms. More so, when appellant herein had specifically raised the issue that such appeal was barred by limitation. NCLAT erred in completely brushing aside this crucial aspect which went to very root of its appellate jurisdiction.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Siddharth Joshi, Adv. Mr. Shubham Madaan, Adv. Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Siddharth Joshi, Adv. Mr. Shubham Madaan, Adv. Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appeal barred by limitation — defective filing due to absence of certified copy of the impugned order and lack of application for condonation of delay. (Para 7 )
3. Limitation under IBC is strict and commences from the date of pronouncement — Rule 22(2) of NCLAT Rules mandating a certified copy is a compulsory requirement. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Limitation for IBC appeals commences upon pronouncement of the order — failure to apply for a certified copy within limitation or file a condonation application renders the appeal defective. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
5. Appeal allowed — judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal set aside. (Para 13 )
6. When does the limitation period for filing an appeal under the IBC commence?
Limitation commences from the date the order is pronounced in open court. If the order is not pronounced when the hearing concludes, it commences on the date the order is pronounced or uploaded on the website. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 )
7. Is the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order mandatory for an appeal before the NCLAT?
Yes, Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules mandates that every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy. While discretionary exemptions may be granted under Rule 14, they cannot be used to render the mandatory requirement of Rule 22(2) nugatory. (Para 5 , 9 , 11 )
8. How is the time taken to obtain a certified copy treated for the purpose of limitation under the IBC?
The time requisite for obtaining a certified copy is excluded only if the application for the copy is filed before the expiry of the limitation period. Time taken by the court to prepare the order before the application is made cannot be excluded. (Para 9 )
9. Can the NCLAT exempt a party from filing a certified copy under Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules?
The NCLAT has discretionary power to grant exemptions in the interest of substantial justice, but such waiver is not an automatic right and cannot completely dispense with the filing of a certified copy. (Para 9 , 11 )
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Challenge in this appeal, filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [for short, “IBC”], is to the judgment dated 01.07.2024 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [for short, “NCLAT”], in so far as it pertains to Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1308 of 2023.
2. Though comprehensive and compendious arguments were advanced by both sides on the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that this appeal is amenable to resolution on a purely technical ground which forecloses examination of the matter on merits.
3. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1308 of 2023 was filed by DSK Global Education and Research Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 1 herein, assailing the validity of the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench [for short, “NCLT”], in I.A. No. 1950 of 2021 in Company Petition (IB) 306/MB/2020. By the said order, the NCLT allowed the interlocutory application filed by the Resolution Professional and approved the resolution plan submitted by the successful resolution applicant, Ashdan Properties Private Limited, the appellant before us.
4. Section 61(2) of the IBC prescribes that every appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority, i.e., the National Company Law Tribunal concerned, should be filed before the jurisdictional National Company Law Appellate Tribunal within 30 days. The proviso thereto, however, allows the said National Company Law Appellate Tribunal to permit the appeal to be filed even after expiry of the period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within that time but such extended period shall not exceed 15 days.
5. It is an admitted fact that the NCLT pronounced the order in the subject I.A. on 23.06.2023. According to respondent No. 1, the said order was uploaded on the website on 26.06.2023. The appeal before the NCLAT was e-filed by respondent No. 1 on 25.07.2023, vide Diary No. 9910110/05909/2023. It is an admitted fact that a certified copy of the impugned order dated 23.06.2023 was not filed along with the said appeal. Rule 22(2) of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 [for short, “NCLAT Rules”], mandates that every appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. This is clear from the express language of the provision which reads thus:
“22(2): Every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order” (emphasis is ours)
6. At that stage, i.e., when the appeal was e-filed by it on 25.07.2023, respondent No. 1 neither filed an application seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of the order nor did it file an application seeking condonation of the delay, if any, in the filing of its appeal. It was only on 23.08.2023 that respondent No. 1 applied for a certified copy of the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the NCLT. It received the certified copy on 07.09.2023 and seems to have filed the same only thereafter before the NCLAT. An application for condonation of the delay of 2 days in the filing of the appeal was filed by respondent No. 1 only on 22.09.2023. Therein, respondent No. 1 stated that after the said order was uploaded on 26.06.2023 on the website, a detailed study was made with regard to the scope of the directions issued and after collating all the documents in respect of the corporate insolvency resolution process, respondent No. 1 got hold of the resolution plan on or around 10.07.2023. According to it, steps were then taken to identify a counsel at Delhi for processing the filing of the appeal and this concluded around 15.07.2023. Thereafter, as per respondent No. 1, internal discussions were held and it was then decided to file the appeal, leading to its e-filing on 25.07.2023. Claiming that its appeal had been filed within the condonable period of 15 days, respondent No. 1 sought condonation of the delay o
