Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan allowed the appeal challenging the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that once the prescribed period of thirty days and the additional condonable period of fifteen days under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 had expired, the Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to condone any further delay. Accordingly, the impugned order condoning the delay was set aside, and the appeal filed before the Tribunal was declared barred by limitation.

The appeal arose from an order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the NCLAT, allowing Interlocutory Application No. 1667 of 2022 for condonation of delay in an appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 61 of the IBC. The appellant, Tata Steel Ltd., was the successful resolution applicant for Rohit Ferro-Tech Limited. The resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors and later by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata, on 07.04.2022.

Also Read: Supreme Court : Reasonable Accommodation Upheld As Fundamental Right | AIIMS Directed To Admit Candiate With Disability Without NEET Reappearance

Respondent No.1, an erstwhile minority shareholder of the corporate debtor, filed an appeal on 23.05.2022, along with an application to condone a 15-day delay. He contended that the limitation period should begin from 08.04.2022, the date on which he received disclosure about the plan’s approval. This would make the filing on 24.05.2022 fall within the permissible 45-day window under Section 61(2) IBC (30 days + 15 days).

The appellant countered that the limitation should run from 07.04.2022, the date of the NCLT order, and hence the statutory maximum 45-day period expired on 22.05.2022. Since the appeal was e-filed on 23.05.2022 and physically filed on 24.05.2022 (46th and 47th days respectively), it was barred by limitation.

The appellant further submitted that 07.05.2022, being a Saturday, was a working day for the NCLAT Registry, and thus Section 4 of the Limitation Act could not extend the limitation. Citing precedents including Ajay Gupta v. Raju @ Rajendra Singh Yadav, it was argued that Saturday closures do not constitute court holidays when the Registry remains functional.

On the other hand, Respondent No.1 argued that the resolution plan's approval was made known to him only on 08.04.2022 through disclosures made to stock exchanges. He alleged that the Resolution Professional failed to comply with SEBI (LODR) Regulations by not disclosing the NCLT order within the mandated timeline. Consequently, the 30-day period commenced on 08.04.2022 and expired on 08.05.2022 (a Sunday), extending it to 09.05.2022 under Section 4. The additional 15-day period thus ended on 24.05.2022.

It was also submitted that the Respondent was not a party to the Section 7 IBC proceedings and lacked access to crucial documents, which contributed to the delay. The NCLAT, acknowledging this, condoned the delay and registered the appeal.

The appellant refuted the late disclosure claim, stating that the Company Secretary of the Corporate Debtor informed NSE and BSE within 30 minutes of the NCLT’s pronouncement on 07.04.2022, meeting SEBI requirements. The certified emails confirming this were placed on record.

The Court recorded that the resolution plan was approved on 07.04.2022, and that the limitation for an appeal under Section 61(2) IBC is a maximum of 45 days – 30 days plus an additional 15 days upon showing sufficient cause. Citing the statutory language, it stated:

"The total permissible period for filing an appeal under section 61(2) is 45 days – comprising 30 days as the prescribed period and an additional 15 days that may be condoned upon showing sufficient cause."

It rejected Respondent No.1’s submission that the limitation should commence from the date of stock exchange disclosure. Relying on V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd., the Court held:

"It was held that under section 61(2) IBC, the limitation period for filing an appeal to the NCLAT commences from the date of pronouncement of the order by the NCLT, not from the date when the order is received or made available to the aggrieved party."

Further, the Bench examined Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and stated its applicability only to the "prescribed period" as defined under Section 2(j), i.e., the primary limitation period (30 days). The Court cited Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects & Mktg. Ltd.:

"The period of 30 days beyond three months which the court may extend on sufficient cause being shown... is not the 'period of limitation' or, in other words, the 'prescribed period'. Therefore, Section 4 of the 1963 Act is not, at all, attracted."

Thus, the benefit of a holiday extension cannot apply to the condonable period.

The Court noted that 07.05.2022, the 30th day from 07.04.2022, was a Saturday, but it was a working day for the NCLAT Registry. Therefore, Section 4 could not be invoked. It observed:

"The benefit of section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be granted, as Respondent No. 1 filed the appeal beyond not only the prescribed period of 30 days but also the condonable period of 15 days."

Also Read: Uttarakhand High Court Clarifies ST Criteria | Residence In Tribal Areas Not Enough | Only Recognized Communities Eligible

Moreover, the Court stated that the NCLAT, being a statutory authority, cannot extend limitation beyond what is provided in the statute. It relied on Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd., stating:

"The NCLAT cannot condone any delay beyond 15 days even on equitable grounds... the appellate mechanism under IBC is strictly time-bound by design to preserve the speed and certainty of the insolvency resolution process."

The Supreme Court held: "The order passed by the NCLAT condoning the delay in filing the appeal, is ultra vires and liable to be set aside."

The appeal was allowed and the NCLAT order dated 14.12.2022 in I.A. No. 1667 of 2022 in CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 615 of 2022 was quashed. The Court issued no costs and closed all connected miscellaneous applications.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant(s): Mr. Shivkrit Rai, Adv.; Ms. Apeksha Singh, Adv.; Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Brijesh Singh Bhaduriya, Adv.; Ms. Shagufa Salim, AOR; Mr. Aviral Kapoor, Adv.; Ms. Sonal Alagh, Adv.; Ms. Ekta Choudhary, AOR; Mr. Ayush Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Anand Krishna, Adv.; Ms. Rushali Sikand, Adv.

Case Title: Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 639

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 408 of 2023

Bench: Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice J.B. Pardiwala

[Read/Download order]