IBC Appeals Cannot Bypass Limitation & Certified Copy Rule — Supreme Court Nullifies NCLAT Order

“The impugned judgment is a superstructure erected on an illusory foundation” – Supreme Court of India set aside an NCLAT judgment for entertaining and deciding an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) appeal that was filed beyond the statutory limitation period and without complying with the mandatory requirement of filing a certified copy of the impugned order.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that strict adherence to timelines and procedural mandates is intrinsic to the IBC framework, and that NCLAT’s failure to consider the clear bar of limitation “went to the very root of its appellate jurisdiction.”

The dispute originated from an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, dated 23 June 2023, in I.A. No. 1950 of 2021 in Company Petition (IB) 306/MB/2020. The NCLT had approved a resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. (the appellants) in the corporate insolvency resolution process.

DSK Global Education and Research Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) challenged the approval before the NCLAT, filing Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1308 of 2023. However:

• The appeal was e-filed on 25 July 2023 — more than 30 days after pronouncement.

• It was filed without a certified copy of the NCLT order.

• No application for exemption from producing the certified copy was made at that time.

• No application for condonation of delay was filed with the appeal.

Respondent No. 1 only applied for the certified copy on 23 August 2023, received it on 7 September 2023, and filed a condonation application on 22 September 2023.

The appellants specifically raised the limitation objection before NCLAT in October 2023. Nonetheless, NCLAT decided the matter on merits in a common judgment dated 1 July 2024, without dealing with the limitation question.

Limitation under IBC is strict

Section 61(2) IBC provides a 30-day period from the NCLT order to file an appeal, with a maximum condonable extension of 15 days if sufficient cause is shown. The Bench reiterated from V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC 244 that:

“Limitation begins from the date of pronouncement, not from the date of uploading… IBC is a watershed legislation… timelines are critical for the workability of the mechanism.”

Since the NCLT order was pronounced on 23 June 2023, limitation began that day. The respondent could not rely on the later uploading date (26 June 2023).

Certified copy requirement is mandatory

Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules mandates: “Every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order.”

The Court stressed this is not a procedural nicety but a statutory requirement demonstrating diligence. Citing V. Nagarajan and A. Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao (2025 INSC 447), the Bench said the party must apply for the certified copy within the limitation period to benefit from Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act.

NCLAT’s power to grant exemption is limited

While Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules allows exemption from procedural requirements, the Court made it clear: “Such powers cannot be exercised so as to render Rule 22(2) nugatory… Even if exemption is granted initially, the certified copy must be filed later within the time stipulated.”

The respondent’s casual filing without either certified copy or condonation application, followed by delayed compliance, meant the appeal was defective from inception.

The Supreme Court concluded that:

• The respondent’s appeal was filed beyond the limitation period without a condonation application.

• The certified copy was neither filed with the appeal nor sought to be exempted within time.

• These defects were jurisdictional bars to NCLAT’s consideration of the appeal on merits.

In scathing terms, Justice Sanjay Kumar wrote:

“The impugned judgment delivered on merits is essentially a superstructure erected on an illusory foundation and cannot, therefore, be sustained.”

The Court allowed the appeal on this short technical ground without examining the merits of the insolvency dispute, setting aside the NCLAT judgment dated 1 July 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1308 of 2023.

This judgment sends a clear message to insolvency practitioners and litigants: IBC timelines are unforgiving, and procedural compliance — especially the certified copy requirement — is not optional. NCLAT cannot sidestep statutory mandates in the name of substantial justice when litigants show a lack of diligence.

Date of Decision: 12 August 2025