Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT Order Condoning Delay in Filing Appeal Under IBC — Filing Without Certified Copy of Impugned Order Renders Appeal Incompetent. The Court held that an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC must be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order or an exemption application; failure to do so makes the appeal incurably defective.

  • 14
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from an appeal filed by M Lalitha (respondent No. 1) before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (NCLAT), under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), challenging an order dated 14.08.2024 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench (NCLT), which approved a resolution plan submitted by  the appellant. Respondent No. 1, the mother of a suspended director of the corporate debtor, Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., claimed to be a financial creditor. She e-filed the appeal on 28.09.2024, the last day of the condonable period of 15 days beyond the 30-day limitation. The appeal had defects, which were communicated on 04.10.2024. The appeal was refiled only on 10.03.2025, with a delay of 150 days in refiling. Even after refiling, several defects remained, including the absence of a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order. Respondent No. 1 applied for the certified copy only on 21.04.2025, long after refiling. She also did not file any application seeking exemption from filing the certified copy. The NCLAT, by order dated 10.11.2025, condoned both the delay in filing (15 days) and the delay in refiling (150 days), imposing costs of ₹50,000. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the record, including the NCLAT Registry's scrutiny report, and found that the appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order as required by Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. Relying on V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited, the Court held that the requirement of a certified copy is not merely technical but indicates diligence. The Court noted that respondent No. 1 did not apply for a certified copy before the expiry of limitation nor sought exemption under Rules 14 and 15 of the NCLAT Rules. The appeal, as filed and refiled, was incurably defective and incompetent. The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT's order, allowed the appeals, and directed that parties bear their own costs.

Headnote

A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Appeal - Limitation - Section 61, IBC, 2016 - Filing of appeal without certified copy of impugned order and without exemption application renders the appeal incompetent - The NCLAT erred in condoning delay without first ascertaining whether the appeal was instituted in accordance with norms - Held that the appeal was incurably tainted and ought to have been rejected at threshold (Paras 1-11).

B) NCLAT Rules - Certified Copy - Rule 22(2), NCLAT Rules, 2016 - Every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order - Filing an application for certified copy is not just a technical requirement but an indication of diligence - Failure to apply for certified copy before expiry of limitation or to seek exemption renders the appeal defective beyond redemption (Paras 7-10).

C) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Section 61(2), IBC, 2016 - The proviso allows a maximum condonable delay of 15 days beyond the 30-day limitation period - However, even if the appeal is filed within the extended period, it must comply with mandatory requirements such as filing a certified copy - The NCLAT's condonation of delay in refiling (150 days) was improper as the appeal was not properly constituted (Paras 4-6, 10-11).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an appeal filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, without a certified copy of the impugned order and without an application for exemption, can be considered a valid institution, and whether the NCLAT erred in condoning the delay in filing and refiling of such an appeal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in IA Nos. 1164 and 1165 in Company Appeal No. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 252 of 2025. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • 2016
  • Section 61
  • Limitation
  • Certified Copy
  • NCLAT Rules
  • Rule 22
  • Rule 26
  • Condonation of Delay
  • Refiling
  • Defects
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (SC) (05) 38

Civil Appeal Nos. 14439-14440 of 2025

2026-05-12

SANJAY KUMAR J. , K. VINOD CHANDRAN J.

2026 INSC 479

Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association

M Lalitha and another

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, condoning delay in filing and refiling of an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought setting aside of the NCLAT order dated 10.11.2025 which condoned the delay in filing and refiling of the appeal filed by respondent No. 1.

Filing Reason

The appellant contended that the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was incurably defective as it was filed without a certified copy of the impugned order and without any application for exemption, and that the NCLAT erred in condoning the delay without addressing these defects.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT, Kochi Bench, by order dated 14.08.2024, approved the resolution plan submitted by the appellant. The NCLAT, by order dated 10.11.2025, condoned the delay in filing and refiling of the appeal against that order.

Issues

Whether an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC filed without a certified copy of the impugned order and without an exemption application is a valid institution. Whether the NCLAT erred in condoning the delay in filing and refiling of such an appeal without first ascertaining compliance with mandatory requirements.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the appeal was incurably defective as it lacked a certified copy of the impugned order and no exemption was sought, and that the NCLAT ought to have rejected it at the threshold. Respondent No. 1 argued that the delay was within the permissible limit and that the defects could be cured, and sought condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

An appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, must be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order as required by Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, or an application seeking exemption from that requirement. Failure to do so renders the appeal incompetent and incurably defective, and the NCLAT cannot condone delay in filing or refiling without first ensuring compliance with these mandatory requirements.

Judgment Excerpts

The filing of such appeal, without even applying for a certified copy of the order dated 14.08.2024, practically meant that there was no filing of an appeal in the eyes of law. The appeal, as filed and refiled, was not a merely defective appeal, wherein the defects could be cured, but was a wholly incompetent appeal that did not satisfy the essentials to pass muster, in terms of the requirements prescribed under the Code and the NCLAT Rules. We find that the NCLAT failed to undertake this exercise.

Procedural History

The NCLT, Kochi Bench, passed an order on 14.08.2024 approving the resolution plan. Respondent No. 1 e-filed an appeal before the NCLAT on 28.09.2024, the last day of the condonable period. Defects were communicated on 04.10.2024. The appeal was refiled on 10.03.2025, with a delay of 150 days. Two delay condonation applications were filed. The NCLAT allowed both applications on 10.11.2025. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court, which set aside the NCLAT order on 12.05.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 61
  • National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016: Rule 22, Rule 26, Rule 14, Rule 15
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT Order Condoning Delay in Filing Appeal Under IBC — Filing Without Certified Copy of Impugned Order Renders Appeal Incompetent. The Court held that an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC must be accompanied by a certifi...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Stay Order in Criminal Proceedings Against Bank Officials - Interim Protection Maintained Pending Quash Petitions. High Court's reasoned interim stay of criminal proceedings including arrest was justified given over...