In CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure and Developers Private Limited the Supreme Court of India adjudicated a critical question regarding the strictness of limitation timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The appeal was preferred by the liquidator of a corporate debtor against an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). While the initial appeal was presented with a 7-day delay—which fell within the statutorily permitted 15-day grace period under Section 62(2) of the IBC—the Registry marked it as defective. The appellant subsequently took an additional 82 days to re-file the appeal after curing the defects.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, ruling that the court lacks the jurisdiction to condone re-filing delays beyond the strict boundaries established by the IBC and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (SCR). The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the time-bound resolution mechanism is the absolute essence of the IBC, and an appeal must be filed in a defect-free format to be validly instituted. The Court established that once the 60-day outer limit of the IBC and the subsequent 28-day defect-curing window under the SCR are exhausted, the right to appeal stands extinguished. Procedural rules or the status of an appellant as a neutral court officer cannot be utilized to circumvent or dilute these mandatory statutory timelines.
1. Factual Matrix and Procedural History
- The Underlying Order: The appellant, acting as the liquidator of a corporate debtor under liquidation, challenged a judgment delivered by the NCLAT on December 8, 2025.
- The Filing Timeline: The appellant presented the appeal before the Supreme Court on January 29, 2026. This initial presentation was delayed by 7 days, placing it beyond the standard 45-day limitation period under Section 62(1) of the IBC, but within the 15-day discretionary grace period permitted under Section 62(2).
- The Re-Filing Delay: The Supreme Court Registry marked the initial appeal as defective. Under Order VIII Rule 6(3) and (4) of the SCR, a litigant is granted a maximum of 28 days to rectify defects. The appellant failed to meet this deadline, curing the defects and re-filing the appeal after an additional delay of 82 days.
- The Applications: The appellant filed two separate applications: one seeking the condonation of the 7-day delay in initial filing, and another seeking the condonation of the 82-day delay in re-filing.
2. Core Legal Issues Formulated
The Supreme Court structured its inquiry around two primary legal questions:
- Whether the Supreme Court has the authority or jurisdiction to condone a delay in the re-filing of an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC when the notified defects are not cured within the 28-day window prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
- Whether a litigant can circumvent the rigid statutory timelines of the IBC by initially lodging a defective appeal within the limitation period and curing those defects at their own leisure.
3. Submissions on Behalf of the Appellant
- Status as a Court Officer: The appellant’s senior counsel contended that because a liquidator functions as a neutral officer under the aegis of the Court to protect stakeholders, procedural delays should be viewed through a liberal, rather than a hyper-technical, lens.
- Initial Filing vs. Re-Filing Standards: It was argued that since the initial appeal was brought within the maximum 60-day window allowed by the IBC, the statutory limitation obligation was technically met. The subsequent delay in re-filing was a procedural matter governed by the SCR, where courts traditionally view “lawyer’s lapses” (such as internal administrative oversights and staff transitions) more leniently than litigant lapses.
- Reliance on Past Indulgence: The appellant cited a prior coordinate Bench decision between the self-same parties (CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure, 2025), where a re-filing delay before the NCLAT under Section 61 was condoned to ensure a decision on structural merits.
4. Legal Analysis &Ratio Decidendi of the Court
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s contentions and established a strict baseline precedent regarding the interaction between the IBC and procedural court rules:
A. Inviolable Priority of IBC Statutory Timelines
The Court reiterated that the scheme of limitation under the IBC is strictly time-bound to prevent dilatory tactics from paralyzing the insolvency resolution or liquidation processes. Synthesizing principles from Mobilox Innovations (2018) and Kalparaj Dharamshi (2021), the Court reaffirmed that neither the adjudicating nor the appellate authorities can reckon any factors outside the strict statutory windows. Under Section 62, the absolute outer limit is 60 days (45 days initial + 15 days grace period), beyond which the Court’s jurisdiction to condone filing delays completely ceases.
B. Defect-Free Filing is Mandatory for Legitimate Institution
The Court soundly rejected the practice of filing a severely defective appeal as a strategic device to “save” limitation. To be recognized as validly instituted within the statutory period, an appeal must be defect-free and immediately capable of being acted upon by the Registry. Countenancing a practice where a litigant files a shell or defective appeal to stop the clock, and then takes months to cure defects, would completely defeat the legislative intent of the IBC.
C. Subordinate Legislation Cannot Override the Parent Statute
The Court addressed the apparent clash between the discretionary powers to condone re-filing delays under the SCR and the rigid timelines of the IBC:
- The SCR constitutes subordinate legislation. Whenever a procedural rule under the SCR conflicts with the express mandates of a parent statute like the IBC, the statutory edict of the IBC must prevail.
- While a liberal construction of “sufficient cause” for re-filing delays remains valid under general laws (such as the CPC, CrPC, or constitutional remedies), the IBC is a complete code in itself.
- Consequently, an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC automatically ceases to exist in the eyes of the law if its defects are not cured within the 28-day window permitted by the SCR. After those 28 days pass, the lis stands permanently frozen, and the right to appeal is extinguished, making an application for re-filing delay legally unmaintainable.
D. Denial of Serial Indulgences and Article 142 Reliefs
The Court held that the appellant’s status as a neutral liquidator does not give the Court a reason to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to override express statutory timeframes. The legislature chose not to carve out a separate, lenient threshold for liquidators, and courts cannot read words into a statute. Furthermore, the appellant could not claim repeated leniency based on the 2025 coordinate Bench order. That previous intervention explicitly recorded that it was not to be treated as a precedent. A litigant who secures a liberal indulgence at an earlier appellate stage cannot assume that subsequent procedural defaults will automatically receive identical judicial sympathy[cite: 17].
5. Decretal Directions & Final Order
- Insufficiency of Cause: Upon reviewing the applications, the Court found that the appellant’s explanation—which blamed the delay on an internal communication oversight by an officer who subsequently left the liquidator’s office—did not constitute “sufficient cause” even under standard parameters[cite: 17].
- Dismissal: Because the statute erects an insurmountable jurisdictional bar that prevents any evaluation of delay once the windows close, the applications for condonation of delay in both filing and re-filing are dismissed[cite: 17].
- Final Order: The defective appeal stands formally dismissed as time-barred[cite: 17]. All connected interlocutory applications are similarly disposed of[cite: 17].
2026 INSC 629
Ca Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary V. Adani Infrastructure And Developers Private Limited (D.O.J. 01.06.2026)
