The Supreme Court held that an appeal against an NCLT order under the IBC must be filed within 30 days from the date of its pronouncement. It reiterated that mandatory filing of a certified copy of the impugned order is integral to a valid appeal, and non-compliance renders the appeal barred by limitation.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from an order dated June 23, 2023, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which approved a resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. in the corporate insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor. The respondent, DSK Global Education and Research Pvt. Ltd., being aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) challenging the NCLT’s decision. The appeal was electronically filed on July 25, 2023. Critically, this filing was not accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order, as mandatorily required under the NCLAT Rules. Furthermore, the respondent did not simultaneously file any application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal or exemption from furnishing the certified copy. It was only later, on August 23, 2023, that the respondent applied for a certified copy, which was received on September 7, 2023. An application to condone a two-day delay in filing the appeal was submitted even later, on September 22, 2023. The appellants contested the appeal’s validity on grounds of limitation. The NCLAT, however, proceeded to decide the appeal on its merits without adjudicating on this crucial preliminary issue of limitation and the defective filing.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case began with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, approving a resolution plan on June 23, 2023. The respondent, DSK Global, challenged this order by filing an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on July 25, 2023. This initial filing was procedurally defective as it was not accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order, and no applications for condonation of delay or exemption were filed at that time. The NCLAT subsequently clubbed this appeal with several others and delivered a common judgment on the merits on July 1, 2024, without addressing the specific limitation objections raised by the appellants. This failure to rule on the preliminary issue of the appeal’s validity led to the present civil appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
READ ALSO:No Endless Cases: Supreme Court Uses Special Power to End Dowry Case After Couple Divorced
Court Observation:
In its observations, the Supreme Court emphasized the paramount importance of strict adherence to statutory timelines and procedural mandates under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Court reiterated that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 61(2) commences from the date of the order’s pronouncement in open court, not from the date of its subsequent upload. It firmly upheld the mandatory nature of Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, which requires every appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. The Bench observed that the discretionary powers of the NCLAT to exempt compliance under Rule 14 cannot be used to render this core requirement nugatory or to condone a litigant’s lack of diligence. The Court concluded that filing an appeal without the certified copy and without seeking exemption or condonation of delay at the time of filing constitutes a fundamental defect that goes to the root of the matter and renders the appeal barred by limitation.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment of the NCLAT dated July 1, 2024. The Court held that the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 before the NCLAT was fundamentally defective and barred by limitation as it was not accompanied by a certified copy of the NCLT’s order at the time of filing, nor were any applications for condonation of delay or exemption filed concurrently. This procedural failure vitiated the NCLAT’s very jurisdiction to entertain the appeal on merits. Consequently, the NCLAT’s judgment was deemed a nullity and was quashed. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. DSK Global Education and Research Pvt. Ltd. and Another Citation: 2025 INSC 959 Appeal Number: Civil Appeal No. 10603 of 2024 Date of Judgement: August 12, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Download The Judgement Here