Supreme Court Rules Limitation for IBC Appeal Runs from NCLAT Order, Not Certified Copy Date

The Supreme Court has delivered an important clarification on how the limitation period for appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is calculated. A Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that the limitation for an appeal against an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) begins from the date the order is provided to the parties under the NCLAT Rules, not from the date a certified copy is obtained.

Background of the Case

The ruling came in an appeal filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) against an NCLAT order concerning Vas Data Services Pvt. Ltd. The company had been admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) in April 2019. The Committee of Creditors approved a resolution plan in August 2020. EPFO later passed an assessment order raising a demand of Rs 1,78,18,960 and approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which allowed the claim. The NCLAT, however, set aside that order, holding that EPFO could not continue assessment proceedings during the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC.

EPFO then appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 62 of the IBC. The registry reported the appeal was 28 days beyond the prescribed limitation period.

The Limitation Question

The court gave EPFO an opportunity to explain the delay. EPFO argued that it received the certified copy of the NCLAT order on 25 March 2026 and had filed the appeal within 60 days from that date. It submitted that Section 62(1) uses the phrase “from the date of receipt of such order,” which should mean receipt of the certified copy.

The court, however, noted that EPFO's delay condonation application and additional affidavit did not disclose when it applied for the certified copy. The bench then examined Rule 95(3) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, which requires the Deputy Registrar to transmit the case file and order to the registry for preparing copies and communicating them to the parties.

Key Observations

The court made two crucial observations:

“Assuming that under the NCLAT Rules, 2016, there is an obligation to provide copy of the order to the parties, the period of limitation would run from the date when the order is provided under NCLAT Rules, 2016, and not from the date when certified copy is obtained.”

The bench further explained the rationale behind this interpretation:

“Because if we assume that the limitation would run only from the date when the certified copy is received by an aggrieved party, the aggrieved party may avoid applying for a certified copy to ensure that limitation period does not commence.”

Court's Decision

The Supreme Court directed EPFO to file a better affidavit disclosing whether any copy of the NCLAT order was transmitted to the parties or their counsel, either through email or any other mode of communication. The matter has been listed for further hearing after two weeks, with the court granting time for the required affidavit to be submitted.

Implications

This ruling clarifies that litigants cannot postpone the start of the limitation period by delaying the procurement of a certified copy. The limitation will run from the date the order is communicated under the relevant tribunal rules, ensuring a more predictable and fair limitation framework for IBC appeals.