Case Law Details
Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association Vs M Lalitha and another (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered the validity of the institution of an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The dispute arose from an appeal filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, by the mother of a suspended director of the corporate debtor, who also claimed to be a financial creditor. She challenged an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench, dated 14.08.2024, which had approved the resolution plan submitted by Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association.
The appeal was e-filed on 28.09.2024, the last day within the condonable period under Section 61(2) of the Code. Since the appeal was filed with delay, an application seeking condonation of a 15-day delay was submitted. The Registry of the NCLAT subsequently pointed out defects in the appeal on 04.10.2024. The defects were not cured within the prescribed period of seven days under Rule 26(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. The appeal was refiled only on 10.03.2025, leading to a separate application seeking condonation of a delay of 150 days in refiling.
On 10.11.2025, the NCLAT allowed both delay condonation applications. It held that delay in refiling was a matter between the tribunal and the appellant and condoned the 150-day delay upon payment of costs of ₹50,000. It also condoned the delay in filing, observing that it was within the maximum permissible period of 45 days under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Code.
The Supreme Court examined the records and the Scrutiny Report of the NCLAT Registry. The report noted that the appeal had been filed on the last day of the condonable period. It further recorded that even after refiling on 10.03.2025, several defects remained uncured. Among the defects were failure to file the appeal in the prescribed format, absence of proper signatures, unstamped vakalatnama, non-filing of applications with requisite court fees, and, importantly, failure to file a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order.
The Court observed that even after refiling, one of the major defects continued to be the absence of a certified copy of the NCLT order dated 14.08.2024. Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules expressly requires every appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. Referring to its earlier decision in Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited, the Court reiterated that parties cannot automatically dispense with the requirement of obtaining and filing a certified copy. Filing an application for a certified copy is not merely a technical requirement but demonstrates diligence in pursuing litigation. Though the NCLAT may grant exemption under its rules, such exemption is not automatic.
The Supreme Court noted that the respondent applied for a certified copy only on 21.04.2025, long after both the original filing and the refiling of the appeal. The certified copy was prepared on 24.04.2025 but was collected only on 12.06.2025. Consequently, when the appeal was refiled on 10.03.2025, it was still not accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order.
The Court emphasized that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prescribes strict timelines, which have been held to be essential. Since the appeal was filed without even applying for a certified copy within the limitation period, the filing could not be regarded as a valid appeal in the eyes of law. The respondent also failed to seek exemption from filing the certified copy either at the time of the original filing or at the time of refiling. Such an exemption application was the minimum requirement that could have enabled the NCLAT to consider permitting later filing of the certified copy.
According to the Court, the appeal was not merely defective but was wholly incompetent and failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements under the Code and the NCLAT Rules. The NCLAT erred in condoning the delays without first examining whether the appeal had been properly instituted in accordance with the prescribed legal requirements.
Holding that the filing and refiling of the appeal were incurably defective, the Supreme Court concluded that the appeal ought to have been rejected at the threshold. The order dated 10.11.2025 of the NCLAT condoning the delays was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The Court directed that each party would bear its own costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The very institution of an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20161, is in issue.
2. Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 252 of 2025 was e-filed on 28.09.2024 by M Lalitha, respondent No. 1 herein, before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (NCLAT). Therein, she challenged the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench (NCLT), in IA (IBC)/216/KOB/2023 in CP(IB)/05/KOB/2021. By the said order, the NCLT had approved the resolution plan submitted by Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association, the appellant. Respondent No.1, the mother of a suspended director of the corporate debtor, viz., Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., also claimed to be its financial creditor and sought to challenge the approval of the appellant’s resolution plan.
3. Respondent No.1’s appeal, e-filed on 28.09.2024, was with delay and IA No. 1164 of 2025 was filed by her seeking condonation of the delay of 15 days in its presentation. While so, on 04.10.2024, the Registry of the NCLAT communicated the defects in the said appeal. The defects were supposedly rectified with delay and an application in IA No. 1165 of 2025 was filed seeking condonation of the delay of 150 days in the refiling of the appeal after the curing of defects.
4. The two delay condonation applications were taken up together on 10.11.2025 by the NCLAT. Though the appellant opposed the condonation of such delay, the NCLAT opined that, insofar as the delay in refiling was concerned, condonation thereof was a matter exclusively between it and the appellant. Holding so, the NCLAT condoned the delay of 150 days in the refiling of the appeal, upon deposit of costs of ₹50,000/- with the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. As regards the delay in filing, the NCLAT observed that the same was within the permissible upper limit of 45 days, stipulated under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Code. Both the IAs were accordingly allowed, vide order dated 10.11.2025. It is this common order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the NCLAT which is subjected to challenge before us presently.
5. Taking note of the fact that the appeal in question was filed before the NCLAT with defects, this Court called for the relevant record from the Registry of the NCLAT. Pursuant thereto, Scrutiny Report dated 27.05.2025 pertaining to the subject appeal was forwarded by the NCLAT. Therein, the Registry noted that the period of limitation for filing the appeal, being 30 days, expired on 13.09.2024 and the condonable delay thereafter, being 15 days, was till 28.09.2024. The appeal was e-filed by respondent No. 1 on the very last day, that is, 28.09.2024. The defects in the appeal were intimated by the Registry on 04.10.2024. The appeal was refiled only on 10.03.2025, though the time stipulated under Rule 26(2) of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 20162, for curing of defects is only 07 days. However, the Registry of the NCLAT found that defects galore still remained uncured. The defects that were noticed by the Registry even after the refiling of the appeal were as under: –
‘1. Appeal should be in chronological order: Memos of parties, Synopsis, List of dates & Events, Memorandum of Appeal, Certified copies of the Impugned order
2. IA to be filed after Dates and events & Rule provision not mentioned
3. Appellant should be signed in IA Papers
4. IA not reflect in the e portal
5. Vakalath to be duly stamped
6. Appeal not in the format of NCLAT – I
7. Certified copy of the impugned order to be filed or IA with requisite court fee to be filed
8. IA with requisite court fee to be filed for delay in refiling for the period 04.10.2024 to 10.03.2025
9. Payment details to be filed after proof of service
10. In Memo of parties counsel sign not furnished’
6. In effect, even after the refiling of the appeal on 10.03.2025, one of the glaring defects that still remained was that a certified copy of the order dated 14.08.2024, sought to be impugned in the appeal, was not filed. No doubt, delay in refiling of a proceeding would, ordinarily, not be tested by the same strict standards that would be applied to delay in the filing of such proceeding but we find that, in the case on hand, the appeal which was refiled by respondent No. 1 was defective beyond redemption. Defect No. 07, noted supra, indicates that the appeal was refiled without a certified copy of the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the NCLT.
7. Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules pertains to presentation of appeals. Rule 22(2) categorically states that every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. In this regard, the 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and others3 assumes significance. Therein, this Court noted that the parties could not automatically dispense with their obligation to apply for and obtain a certified copy for filing an appeal under Rule 22. It was further noted that a person wishing to file an appeal is expected to file an application for the certified copy before the expiry of the limitation period, upon which ‘the requisite time’ for obtaining the certified copy is liable to be excluded while computing limitation. Further, it was observed that though Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules enabled parties being exempted from compliance with the requirement of the rules and though waiver on the filing of an appeal with a certified copy is often granted, it does not confer an automatic right on the applicant to dispense with compliance and render Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules nugatory. This Court, therefore, held that the act of filing an application for a certified copy is not just a technical requirement for computation of limitation but an indication of the diligence of the party in pursuing the litigation in a timely fashion.
8. In the case on hand, as stated earlier, a certified copy of the NCLT’s order dated 14.08.2024, that was sought to be appealed against by respondent No. 1, was not filed along with the refiled appeal but long thereafter. Perusal of the photocopy of the said certified copy reflects that respondent No. 1 applied for the same only on 21.04.2025 and though the certified copy was prepared on 24.04.2025, it was not collected till 12.06.2025. Therefore, on 10.03.2025, when it was refiled, the appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the order dated 14.08.2024.
9. Given the strict timelines provided in the Code, which were held to be of essence by this Court (See Ebix Singapore Private Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and another4), we may note that respondent No. 1 chose to e-file an appeal against the order dated 14.08.2024 on the very last day available to her, in terms of the limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Code. However, 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. As pointed out by this Court, a diligent litigant is expected to apply for a certified copy of the order sought to be appealed against before the period of limitation runs out and, by doing so, such litigant would be entitled to seek exclusion of the time taken to procure the certified copy for the purpose of limitation.
10. However, as noted earlier, respondent No. 1 did not even apply for a certified copy of the NCLT’s order dated 14.08.2024 till 21.04.2025, long after the refiling of the appeal on 10.03.2025. To make matters worse, respondent No.1 did not even choose to file an application for exemption from filing such certified copy at any point, be it at the time of filing the appeal on 28.09.2024 or its refiling on 10.03.2025. This was the minimum requirement for respondent No. 1 to have complied with, when she filed and refiled her appeal without a certified copy of the NCLT’s order dated 14.08.2024. Any such application could have been considered by the NCLAT under Rules 14 and 15 of the NCLAT Rules to enable the filing of the certified copy by respondent No.1 within such further time as is stipulated by the NCLAT. In effect, 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. However, the NCLAT totally lost sight of these vital aspects while considering the two applications filed by respondent No. 1 seeking condonation of delay in the filing and the refiling of the appeal. The NCLAT ought not to have extended such indulgence to respondent No. 1, without first ascertaining whether her appeal was instituted in accordance with the norms. We find that the NCLAT failed to undertake this exercise.
11. On the above analysis, we hold that the filing/refiling of the appeal by respondent No. 1 was incurably tainted and the same ought to have been rejected at the threshold. 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 is, accordingly, set aside.
12. The appeals are allowed, in the aforestated terms.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Notes:
1 For brevity, ‘the Code’
2 For brevity, ‘NCLAT Rules’
3 (2022) 2 SCC 244
4 (2022) 2 SCC 401
Author Bio
