The Supreme Court has held that an appeal filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) without a certified copy of the impugned order, and without even applying for such certified copy within the limitation period, is not merely defective but “wholly incompetent” in the eyes of law.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran observed that strict compliance with procedural requirements assumes greater significance under the IBC because the Code prescribes rigid timelines for insolvency proceedings.
The dispute arose from an appeal filed before the NCLAT by M. Lalitha, who challenged an order of the National Company Law Tribunal approving a resolution plan submitted by Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association in the corporate insolvency resolution process of Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
According to the judgment, the appeal was e-filed on 28 September 2024, which itself was the last condonable day available under Section 61(2) of the IBC. The appellant before the NCLAT thereafter sought condonation of 15 days’ delay in filing and 150 days’ delay in refiling the appeal after curing defects.
The Supreme Court noted that the Registry of the NCLAT had pointed out multiple defects in the appeal on 4 October 2024. Even after refiling on 10 March 2025, several defects remained uncured, including the absence of a certified copy of the NCLT order being challenged.
The judgment records that the certified copy was applied for only on 21 April 2025, long after the appeal had been refiled, and even then it was collected only on 12 June 2025.
Referring to Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, the Supreme Court reiterated that every appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. The Court relied upon its earlier three-judge bench ruling in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd., which held that obtaining a certified copy is not a mere technical formality but an indicator of diligence in pursuing litigation.
The Bench observed that although delay in refiling is generally treated more liberally than delay in initial filing, such indulgence cannot be granted where the appeal itself fails to satisfy the foundational statutory requirements.
The Court further emphasized that the respondent had neither filed the certified copy along with the appeal nor moved any application seeking exemption from filing it at the time of filing or refiling. In such circumstances, the appeal could not be treated as a curable defective appeal.
Making strong observations on procedural discipline under the IBC framework, the Court held that filing an appeal without even applying for a certified copy within the limitation period “practically meant that there was no filing of an appeal in the eyes of law.”
The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the NCLAT “totally lost sight” of these vital aspects while condoning the delays and failed to first determine whether the appeal had been validly instituted in accordance with the IBC and the NCLAT Rules.
The Court set aside the NCLAT’s order dated 10 November 2025 and held that the appeal before the NCLAT was “incurably tainted” and liable to be rejected at the threshold.
Case Details
Case Title: Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association Versus M Lalitha and another
Citation: JURISHOUR-1236-SC-2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 14439-14440 of 2025
Date: 13/05/2026
