The core issue revolves around the dismissal of appeals by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) due to the appellant’s failure to file within the stipulated time limits and subsequent refusal to condone the delay. The NCLAT’s decision was based on the appellant’s misstatements regarding certified copies and the lack of sufficient cause for the delay. The Supreme Court ultimately upholds the NCLAT’s decision, reinforcing the strict interpretation of limitation periods under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), particularly Section 61, and affirming that limitation typically commences from the date of order pronouncement, not the receipt of a certified copy unless specifically applied for.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, 61(2), Section 60(5) read with Section 35(1)(N); Section 30(6) and 31(1) – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, Regulation 29(4) – NCLAT Rules, Rule 50, 22(2) – Companies Act, 2013, Section 421(3) – Limitation Act, 1963, Section 12 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Limitation for appeal – Condonation of delay – Sufficient cause – Held that in the absence of any certified copy having been applied by the appellant of the impugned orders dated 20th July 2023 passed by the NCLT on which it was admittedly pronounced, with Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules mandating filing of the appeal along with the certified copy, the appeals as preferred by the appellant need to be dismissed as they were filed beyond 30 days and no steps have been taken by the appellant to seek certified copy of the order – Second appeal, on this score alone is to be dismissed as there is no question of moving an application for condonation of delay when no application for obtaining a certified copy of the order has been filed – Exemption from filing of certified copy, cannot be claimed as a matter of right in terms of the statutory requirements of the Rules – As regards the first appeal, which was accompanied with the certified copy supplied free by NCLT the same also being beyond the period of limitation and the time of ten days as sought to be exempted for the preparation and making available the certified copy cannot be credited to the benefit of the appellant as the period of limitation commences from the date of pronouncement of the order and the benefit of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act is available only on an application for grant of certified copy of the Order having been filed till the date of preparation of the said certified copy – Since no such steps have been taken by the appellant for applying the certified copy, the appeal was beyond limitation – The application of condonation of delay in the first appeal, disclosing no reasons whatsoever in filing the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay – The satisfaction has to be of the Appellate Tribunal and that too on justifiable grounds, which, as is apparent, from the perusal of the application there is none pleaded which can be said to be projecting sufficient cause for not approaching the Appellate Tribunal within the time stipulated under Section 61(2) of the IBC – Reasons as assigned by the Appellate Tribunal for rejecting the application for condonation is clearly borne out from the pleading and the facts which do not call for any interference in the present appeals.
(Para 26 to 30)
A Rajendra V. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 447: (DoJ 04-04-2025)
