Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
Adani Infrastructure And Developers Private Limited – Respondent
Civil Appeal No /2026 @ D. No. 5988 of 2026
Decided On : 01-06-2026
(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 61 and 62 – Appeal – Limitation – Scheme of limitation under IBC is a strict and time-bound one – Concept of condonation of delay itself is alien to statutory framework beyond period expressly contemplated under statute – Outer limit statutorily permissible is 60 (sixty) days, beyond which appeal itself becomes barred and Court’s jurisdiction to condone delay ceases – Time bound resolution is essence of IBC – Condonation of delay beyond period expressly prescribed by statute itself would be impermissible – appeal stands dismissed as time-barred. (Paras 4, 6, 7 and 28)
(B) Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order VIII, Rule 6, Sub-rules (3) and (4) – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 61 and 62 – Defective appeal – Period of 28 (twenty-eight) days is earmarked for curing of defects – A litigant not curing defects within 28 (twenty-eight) days may re-file petition or appeal, together with application seeking condonation of re-filing delay – Condonation of re-filing delay for petitions and appeals is discretionary – Appeal under Section 62 of IBC to be regarded as having been instituted within prescribed period of 45 (forty-five) days must be a defect-free appeal – Any appeal which is not filed within stipulated period in a form shorn of defects, for all practical and legal purposes, remains a defective appeal – Litigant cannot be permitted to circumvent rigours of limitation by filing defective appeal as a device to save limitation and, thereafter, to opt to cure notified defects at leisure – Once window of 60 (sixty) days prescribed by IBC, followed by window of 28 (twenty-eight) days in re-filing appeal upon curing of defects permitted by SCR is shut, right to appeal stands extinguished – Litigant who has once secured indulgence in relation to delay cannot legitimately proceed on assumption that further defaults engendered at next appellate stage would automatically attract similar exercise of discretion. (Paras 10, 15, 16, 17 and 23)
(C) Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order VIII, Rule 6, Sub-rules (3) and (4) – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 61 and 62 – Overriding effect of IBC – SCR is subordinate legislation in the field and whenever IBC and SCR clash, latter cannot override express provisions of former – IBC must prevail being statutory edict. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
This is an appeal under Section 62 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, at instance of Liquidator of a corporate debtor under liquidation. Under challenge is judgment and order dated 08th December, 2025 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
Sufficient cause not having been shown to satisfactorily explain delay(s). Absent any cogent or convincing justification, delay(s) in both the filing of the defective appeal and re-filing of appeal are not liable to be condoned.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The scheme of limitation under the IBC is strict and time-bound; outer limit is 60 days, beyond which the appeal is barred and delay cannot be condoned. (!) - An appeal under Section 62 must be defect-free to be registered; defects must be cured within 28 days, after which re-filing delay may be considered, but condonation is discretionary and limited by statutory timelines. (!) - Filing and re-filing delays are not to be condoned beyond the statutory windows; once the 60-day period and 28-day defect-curing window are closed, the right to appeal is extinguished. (!) (!) - The SCR provisions on curing defects do not override the IBC’s time-bound framework; a defective appeal cannot be cured beyond the prescribed SCR window if the IBC timeframe is exhausted. (!) - The court emphasized that a neutral officer’s delays or liberal condonation cannot override the strict timelines enshrined in the IBC; a defective appeal filed beyond the permissible limit cannot be entertained. (!) (!) - In the present case, the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation and defect-cure periods, and was dismissed as time-barred. (!) (!) - The decision reiterates that condonation of re-filing delays beyond 28 days is not permissible if the defects were not cured within 28 days; otherwise, the appeal remains defective and cannot be saved by subsequent delay condonation. (!) (!) - The IBC prevails over SCR when in conflict, and IBC is a complete code for filing appeals under Section 62. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20161 [IBC], at the instance of the liquidator of a corporate debtor under liquidation. Under challenge is the judgment and order dated 08th December, 20252 [impugned order] passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi3 [NCLAT] in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No.2316 of 2024.
2. Having regard to the point on which we propose to decide the appeal, we see no reason to comment on the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order.
3. The appeal was presented on 29th January 2026, beyond the period of limitation prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 62, IBC but within the grace period stipulated in sub-section (2) thereof. Office reported a delay of 7 (seven) days in filing the appeal. An application seeking condonation of the said delay has been filed. Office had also marked the appeal defective. Upon curing the defects, the appeal came to be re-filed after a further delay of 82 (eighty-two) days for which a separate application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing has also been filed.
4. At the outset, it must be borne in mind that the scheme of limitation under the IBC is a strict and time-bound one. The concept of condonation of delay itself is alien to the statutory framework beyond the period expressly contemplated under the statute. Section 62 of the IBC permits an appeal to be filed before this Court within 45 (forty-five) days, with a further grace period of only 15 (fifteen) days, and that too, only upon sufficient cause being shown. Thus, the outer limit statutorily permissible is 60 (sixty) days, beyond which the appeal itself becomes barred and the Court’s jurisdiction to condone the delay ceases.
5. The importance of strict adherence to timelines under the IBC has been enunciated by this Court succinctly in its decision in Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC 353 as follows:
6. Time bound resolution is the essence of the IBC was reiterated in respect of an appeal under Section 61 thereof in Kalparaj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited, (2021) 10 SCC 401 in the following words:
7. Reference can also be made to the decisions in National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Dunar Foods Ltd. (Resolution Professional), (2022) 11 SCC 761 V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd, (2022) 2 SCC 244 and Tata Steel Limited v. Raj Kumar Banerjee and Others, (2025) 9 SCC 483 which, though arising in the context of appeals under Section 61 of the IBC, reaffirm that condonation of delay beyond the period expressly prescribed by the statute itself would be impermissible.
8. Furthermore, this Court in PEC Ltd. v. M/s Phulchand Exports Private Ltd., Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 37293 of 2022 held pithily as follows:
2 Hence, the civil appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation.
3 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
9. In Saturn Ventures and Advis
(1) Appeal – Limitation – Time bound resolution is essence of IBC and a time-barred appeal cannot be entertained.(2) Supreme Court Rules, 2013, being a procedural law must be read in a manner to aid ....
The IBC mandates strict adherence to limitation periods for appeals, emphasizing timely resolution in insolvency proceedings.
The NCLAT cannot condone delays beyond the statutory maximum of 45 days under the IBC, emphasizing strict adherence to limitation periods in insolvency processes.
Delay in filing an appeal under the IBC cannot be excused based on lack of knowledge regarding the proceedings; Limitation must be strictly construed.
S.198 IBC condones Board's regulatory delays, not appeal filing beyond S.61(2)'s 45-day limit.
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
