Appeal Dismissed For Defective Filing; Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT Order For Failure To Consider Limitation And Certified‑copy Requirement
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma heard an appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code challenging the NCLAT judgment of 01.07.2024 which had upheld an NCLT order approving a resolution plan. The primary issue was whether the company appeal filed before the NCLAT was maintainable, having been e-filed without a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order and without a timely application for condonation of delay.
The Court allowed the appeal on a short technical ground, holding that the respondent’s appeal before the NCLAT was defectively instituted and barred by limitation, and that the NCLAT erred in failing to examine these foundational defects. The Supreme Court noted that under the IBC regime the timelines and procedural mandates were "peremptory" and parties were expected to exercise due diligence in filing appeals. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further described the erroneous impugned judgment as a “superstructure erected on an illusory foundation.”
Background The dispute arose from an NCLT, Mumbai Bench order dated 23.06.2023 in I.A. No.1950 of 2021 in Company Petition (IB) 306/MB/2020 which approved the resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No.1 (DSK Global Education and Research Pvt. Ltd.) e-filed Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1308 of 2023 before the NCLAT on 25.07.2023. It was admitted that the NCLT order was pronounced in open court on 23.06.2023 and uploaded on the website on 26.06.2023. The appeal was filed without a certified copy of the NCLT order and without an application for exemption therefrom or for condonation of delay. An application for the certified copy was filed on 23.08.2023 and received on 07.09.2023; an application for condonation of delay was filed on 22.09.2023.
The appellant raised a specific limitation objection before the NCLAT on 27.10.2023, contending that the appeal was barred. The NCLAT, however, did not address the limitation or the absence of the certified copy and decided the matters on merits. The Supreme Court analysed settled precedent, including V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. and A. Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao, and reiterated that under the IBC regime limitation commenced from the date of pronouncement of the order in open court (23.06.2023 in this case). The Court held that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, which mandates that every appeal be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order, is binding and that the NCLAT’s powers under Rules 14 and 15 could not be exercised so as to render Rule 22(2) nugatory. Because respondent No.1 did not apply for a certified copy or seek condonation within the prescribed time, its appeal remained defective and barred by limitation. The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT judgment dated 01.07.2024 and allowed the present appeal. Pending applications were disposed of.
Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 10603 of 2024 (2025 INSC 959) Case Title: Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. DSK Global Education and Research Pvt. Ltd. and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment