Delay in filing an appeal under IBC can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown, such as relying on the date of uploading of the order, provided an application for exemption from filing the certified copy is submitted.

O R D E R

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

This is an application filed by the appellant praying for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.

The order impugned dated 06.10.2025 was passed by the adjudicating authority approving the resolution plan of the corporate debtor and the present appeal against the impugned order has been e-filed on 11.12.2025.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is an operational creditor, who was not part of the proceeding in the plan approval application and came to know about the order after he received communication from the Resolution Professional (“RP”) on 04.11.2025 by the RP. It is submitted that copy of the order was uploaded only on 28.10.2025 and from calculating the limitation from 28.10.2025, delay in filing the appeal is within the condonable period of 15 days.

Notices were issued on the delay condonation application. Reply has been filed both by the RP and Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”). Rejoinder has been filed by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the respondents refuting the submissions of the appellant submits that the order having been dictated on 06.10.2025, limitation is to be counted from 06.10.2025 and appeal filed on 11.12.2025 is beyond the condonable period. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent that appellant has not applied even certified copy of the order and in view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association’ Vs. ‘M Lalitha & Anr.’ in [Civil Appeal Nos.14439-1440/2025] delay condonation application need to be rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that knowledge of the order by the appellant is not relevant for computation of delay and limitation need to be computed from the date of the order dated 06.10.2025.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that respondent No. 2 has also filed an appeal against the same order 06.10.2025 being Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.1828/2025, which appeal was also filed with delay and appellant himself pleaded that order was uploaded on 28.10.2025. In the appeal filed by respondent No. 2, he has relied on uploading of the order on 28.10.2025.

We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the records.

There is no dispute between the parties regarding that order was dictated on 06.10.2025. According to the appellant order was uploaded only on 28.10.2025 and the limitation is to be computed from the said date.

We need to consider the submission on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied by the Respondent in ‘Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association’ (supra). In the said case, the company appeal was filed with delay of 15 days and there was also refiling delay of 150 days. The NCLAT Chennai allowed both the applications against which the appeal was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that appellant has not filed the certified copy of the order even though when defect was pointed out, the certified copy of the order was not filed. Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the judgment in ‘V. Nagarajan’ Vs. ‘SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. & Ors.’ reported in [(2022) 2 SCC 244] held that applying of certified copy of the order is an obligation cast under Rule 22 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 . In paragraph 7, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down following:

“7. Having considered the arguments advanced and the documents on record, the central issues for adjudication are:

(i) Whether the appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 was within the prescribed limitation period of 30 days, along with the additional condonable period of 15 days as provided under section 61(2) IBC; and

(ii) If not, whether the NCLAT has the power to condone the delay beyond the said prescribed and condonable period under the IBC.”

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case in paragraph 9 held that when appellant has not even applied for certified copy of the or