Back
Supreme Court Slams the Door on Lax Filings: Certified Copies Now Mandatory for
In a procedural wake-up call, the has firmly restated that cannot be entertained without a of the , invoking . A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran issued this directive while addressing defects in a civil appeal by against Bijendra Kumar Jha and others , arising from a order dated . The ruling didn't just flag the bank's slips—it triggered a Supreme Court circular standardizing stricter scrutiny for all such appeals nationwide.
From NCLAT to Apex Court: A Timeline of Delays
The dispute traces back to NCLAT's decision in CAAT(I) No. 713/2025. filed its appeal (Diary No. 57050/2025) on —just one day beyond the limitation period—without a condonation application. Compounding this, re-filing took 102 extra days, and the bank sought exemption from attaching a of the NCLAT order, without disclosing if it had even applied for one. These lapses came under the microscope during the hearing, alongside linked appeal Diary No. 57046/2025.
The core procedural questions: Can minor delays slide without explanation? Does an exemption plea suffice sans a for , which carry rigid timelines?
Bank's Bold Exemptions, Respondents' Silence
Central Bank, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and a team including AOR Brijesh Kumar Tamber , pushed applications for delay condonation in re-filing (IA 50872/2026), (IA 50864/2026), and exemption (IA 50868/2026). No substantive merits were argued; focus stayed on curing filing defects.
Respondents, including counsel like AORs , , and , were present but mounted no detailed counter, as the hearing zeroed in on preliminary compliance.
Bench's Razor-Sharp Procedural Scrutiny
The justices dissected the bank's filings against . Key was Order XIX Rule 40 , mandating certified copies for impugned judgments in —no shortcuts via exemptions without proof of efforts to obtain one. The bench lambasted the missing condonation for the initial one-day delay and flagged the 102-day re-filing lag.
They instructed the Registry:
"Registry shall be mindful about the delay aspect while scrutinizing
, which are to be filed within the prescribed limitation period."
This underscores a zero-tolerance shift for time-barred filings in high-stakes appeals like those from NCLAT.
Key Observations Straight from the Bench
-
On
mandate
:
"in the light of
, a statutory appeal cannot be entertained without a
of the judgment impugned therein."
-
On exemption lapses
:
"though an application has been filed seeking exemption from filing a
of the
, we find that there is a delay of 102 days in the re-filing of this appeal but the application filed for exemption does not even indicate as to whether the appellant has applied for a
."
-
On initial delay
:
"We find that this appeal was filed on
with a delay of one day. However, an application for
in its filing, which ought to have been filed, has not been filed."
These quotes crystallize the court's emphasis on ironclad procedural adherence.
Cure the Defects or Face the Boot: Order and Ripples
The Court ordered:
"These defects shall be cured by the next date of hearing. Re-list on
along with Civil Appeal Diary No. 57046/2025..."
No merits were touched; the appeal stays in limbo until compliance.
The impact? Profound. Pursuant to this order (cited as the Supreme Court issued a circular on
:
"In pursuance of the directions issued in Civil Appeal D.No. 57050 of 2025... a Statutory Appeal cannot be entertained without accompanied by a
of the judgment impugned therein. Henceforth, all such
shall be accompanied by a
..."
(Referencing
).
For litigants, banks, and tribunals: Future NCLAT or similar appeals demand airtight filings from day one. This procedural fortification promises swifter scrutiny but tests appellants' diligence, potentially weeding out sloppy challenges early.
