Pranav B Prem

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench at New Delhi, has held that there is no time limit under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for filing an application for rectification of orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Instead, such rectifications are governed by Rule 154 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which prescribes a two-year window for seeking correction of final orders. The ruling came in a case involving Sandeep Goel, the erstwhile Resolution Professional (RP) of Sarvottam Realcon Pvt. Ltd., who challenged the rejection of his rectification plea by the Adjudicating Authority.

Also Read: CESTAT Orders Refund of Anti-Dumping Duty Paid by Mistake in Self-Assessment; Says Such Payment Has No Legal Sanction

The appeal arose from the NCLT’s order dated 09.05.2025 in I.A. No. 5446/2024, where the Adjudicating Authority had dismissed the RP’s rectification application on the ground that it was filed beyond the permissible timeframe. The application sought rectification of specific financial details recorded in the resolution plan approved earlier on 30.07.2024.

According to the appellant, the discrepancies in the figures presented in the resolution plan stemmed from inadvertent omission of data that had already been discussed and approved in the 20th CoC meeting held on 24.12.2022. Despite being reflected in the minutes and annexures of the plan, the approved figures were not incorporated when the resolution plan was placed before the Tribunal. The appellant specifically sought the following corrections in the plan:

1. CIRP Cost till 30.11.2022: Recorded as ₹89,33,351 in the approved plan but should have been ₹1,28,06,744 as per the CoC minutes.

2. CIRP Cost for 01.12.2022 to 30.06.2023: Clarified to be ₹60,00,000, a detail also supported by the CoC.

3. Security Deposit to ALT Society: Clarification sought on a ₹1.05 crore security deposit, stated in the resolution plan to be based on information from the MOU, which the RP was supposed to verify and confirm.

The counsel for the appellant argued that all the figures had been duly approved by the CoC and should have been part of the plan approved by the Tribunal. Their omission was inadvertent and procedural, thus warranting rectification. The rectification application was filed in October 2024—barely three months after the final order approving the resolution plan. However, the Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application citing limitation, stating that under the IBC, rectification can only be sought within 30 days of the final order. This formed the basis of the present appeal before the NCLAT.

At the appellate stage, the NCLAT examined whether the rejection of the rectification application was legally sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had not cited any specific provision of the IBC to support the conclusion that a 30-day time limit applied. Instead, the Appellate Tribunal examined Rule 154 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which governs rectification of orders: “Any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order of the Tribunal or error therein arising from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the Tribunal on its own motion or on application of any party by way of rectification… An application under this Rule may be made within two years from the date of the final order…”

Relying on this provision, the NCLAT found merit in the appellant’s case. The Bench comprising Justice N. Sesha Sayee (Judicial Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) observed that since the rectification was sought within three months of the original order, the appellant was well within the two-year time frame provided under Rule 154(2).

Importantly, the NCLAT found that the rectifications were in the nature of clerical and arithmetical corrections, already backed by CoC resolutions and referenced in the resolution plan’s annexures. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority ought to have considered the rectification plea on its merits instead of dismissing it on erroneous grounds of limitation.  “This Tribunal considers that the Adjudicating Authority ought to have considered the appellant’s I.A. No. 5446/2024 favourably.”

Also Read: CESTAT Rules, Leasing Out Land For 90 Years Against One-Time Payment Constitutes Transfer Of Immovable Property, Exempt From Service Tax

The NCLAT, therefore, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 09.05.2025, and directed the Adjudicating Authority to hear the rectification application on merits. It further instructed the NCLT to dispose of the application expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.

Appearance

For Appellant: Mr. Ankur Mittal and Ms. Sabhya Jain, Advocates.

For Respondent: Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Advocate for SRA

Cause Title: Sandeep Goel (Erstwhile RP in CIRP of Sarvottam Realcon Pvt. Ltd.) V. Anugraham Builders

Case No: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 973 of 2025

Coram: Justice N. Sesha Sayee [Member-Judicial], Barun Mitra [Member-Technical]