“Limitation Begins from Date of Pronouncement, Not Copy Receipt”: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal, Says Delay Under IBC Beyond 45 Days Is “Incapable of Condonation”
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed two civil appeals filed under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, holding them barred by limitation. The Court upheld the rejection of applications for condonation of delay by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and held that the limitation period begins from the date of pronouncement of the order, not from the receipt or knowledge of its contents. The appeals were dismissed on the ground that they were filed beyond the outer limit of 45 days, and no application for certified copy had been filed to invoke the benefit of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act.
The appellant, a shareholder and suspended Managing Director of Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Limited (Corporate Debtor), filed two appeals before the NCLAT against orders dated July 20, 2023, passed by the NCLT. In one, he had sought direction under Section 60(5) read with Section 35(1)(n) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for the consideration of his Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). In the other, the Resolution Professional’s (RP) application under Section 30(6) and Section 31(1) of the IBC for approval of a different Resolution Plan submitted by a consortium was allowed.
The appellant initially filed the NCLAT appeals asserting they were within limitation. However, objections were raised regarding the limitation period, leading the appellant to file applications for condonation of delay in both matters.
The appellant relied on the date of availability of a certified copy—August 1, 2023—for one appeal and, in the second, on the date of knowledge, i.e., August 7, 2023. The appeals were filed on August 28, 2023. In both cases, the NCLAT found misstatements in the grounds of appeal, including contradictory claims about when the orders were received and whether certified copies had been applied for. The appellant later admitted that no certified copies were applied for at all.
The NCLAT dismissed both appeals, finding that the limitation period had expired and the delay was not condonable under the IBC. The NCLAT also held that the explanations provided in the condonation applications were inconsistent and insufficient.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the delay was only of ten days beyond the initial 30-day period and was therefore condonable under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the IBC. It was submitted that limitation should be counted from the date of knowledge or receipt of the order’s contents, not from the date of pronouncement. It was also argued that the delay resulted from obtaining legal opinion and preparing the appeal, which should be considered sufficient cause for condonation.
In one appeal, the appellant relied on a free certified copy obtained from the NCLT, while in the other, he submitted an application seeking exemption from filing the certified copy, stating it was lost in transit. The appellant relied on the decision in Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. to argue that an application for condonation is not always necessary.
The respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that no certified copy had been applied for, that contradictory stands had been taken in the grounds of appeal and delay applications, and that the appeal was clearly filed beyond the statutory 45-day window. They relied on Section 61(2) of the IBC and NCLAT procedural rules.
The respondents contended that the applications for condonation of delay were filed much later and were unsupportable. They further argued that misrepresentations made in the grounds of appeal regarding the limitation period undermined the credibility of the appellant’s claims.
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the facts and law, observed that “in the absence of any certified copy having been applied by the appellant of the impugned orders dated 20th July 2023 passed by the NCLT on which it was admittedly pronounced, with Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules mandating filing of the appeal along with the certified copy, the appeals as preferred by the appellant need to be dismissed.”
It was recorded that “the period of limitation commences from the date of pronouncement of the order and the benefit of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act is available only on an application for grant of certified copy of the Order having been filed till the date of preparation of the said certified copy.”
The Court noted that the statutory scheme of Section 61(2) of the IBC sets a 30-day period to file an appeal, with a maximum extension of 15 days upon sufficient cause, stating:
“The restrictions with regard to allowing extension in the provisions stipulated is cloaked in such a manner that the provisions have to be strictly followed… The limit, therefore, has been prescribed as regards the period within which the discretion has to be applied by NCLAT.”
The judgment reaffirmed that the limitation period starts not from the date of knowledge or receipt of the order but from the pronouncement date:
“The limitation thus, starts from the date of pronouncement of the Order and not from the date the Order is made available to the parties.”
The Court cited its earlier ruling in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd., where it held that Section 61 of the IBC does not require waiting for certified copies. The Court reiterated, “The primacy of Code was said to be established being the intent of the legislature.”
It also relied on National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Anil Kohli, RP, stating, “An appeal must be filed within 30 days and in any case, delay beyond 15 days cannot be condoned in terms of Section 61(2) of the IBC.” The Court noted that the discretionary power to condone delay must be exercised within the narrow statutory window and upon a justifiable cause.
On the question of exemption from filing certified copies, the Court held:
“Exemption from filing of certified copy, as has been referred to above, cannot be claimed as a matter of right in terms of the statutory requirements of the Rules.”
The Court dismissed the submission that a delay due to seeking legal opinion constituted sufficient cause:
“The application of condonation of delay in the first appeal, disclosing no reasons whatsoever in filing the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay.”
The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the NCLAT and concluded that both appeals were barred by limitation under the statutory scheme of Section 61(2) of the IBC. It held that the extended period of 15 days is not to be construed liberally and that the appellant had failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay.
The Court stated, “The satisfaction has to be of the Appellate Tribunal and that too on justifiable grounds, which, as is apparent, from the perusal of the application there is none pleaded which can be said to be projecting sufficient cause for not approaching the Appellate Tribunal within the time stipulated under Section 61(2) of the IBC.”
Accordingly, the Court concluded:
“In view of the above, we uphold the impugned order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the NCLAT and dismiss the present appeals.”
The judgment closed with the order: “There shall be no orders on costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Dr. S. Muralidhar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Raghav Sabharwal, Advocate-on-Record
For the Respondents: Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Advocate; Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Zain A. Khan, Advocate; Mr. Vaibhav More, Advocate; Mr. Dev Aaryan, Advocate; Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate; Ms. Petrushka Dasgupta, Advocate; Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Divya Anand, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Siddharth Sangal, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Richa Mishra, Advocate; Ms. Harshita Agrawal, Advocate; Ms. Mushkan Mangla, Advocate
Case Title: A Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 447
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 11070 – 11071 of 2024 (@ Diary No. 10029 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Augustine George Masih
[Read/Download order]
