The Supreme Court has held that an appeal filed without a certified copy of the impugned order, and without even an application for exemption from filing such certified copy, is not a merely defective appeal capable of being cured, rather it is a wholly incompetent appeal that does not satisfy the essential requirements under the Code and the NCLAT Rules.
A Two-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran reaffirmed, that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules mandatorily requires every appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order, and that parties cannot automatically dispense with this obligation. The Bench emphasised that the act of applying for a certified copy before the expiry of the limitation period is not merely a technical requirement but is an indicator of the diligence of the party in pursuing litigation in a timely manner.
The Bench further held that the NCLAT, while considering applications for condonation of delay, was obligated to first ascertain whether the appeal had been instituted in accordance with the prescribed norms before extending any indulgence to the appellant. Having failed to undertake this exercise, the NCLAT’s order condoning the delay was set aside. The filing and refiling of the appeal were held to be incurably tainted, and the appeal ought to have been rejected at the threshold.
Briefly, the appellant, Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association, had its resolution plan approved by the NCLT, Kochi Bench. Later, the Respondent No. 1, M Lalitha, the mother of a suspended director of the corporate debtor, Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd., claimed to be a financial creditor of the corporate debtor and sought to challenge the approval of the resolution plan.
Respondent No. 1 e-filed Company Appeal before the NCLAT, Chennai, which was the very last day of the condonable period of 15 days available beyond the 30-day limitation period prescribed under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the IBC. The appeal was filed with defects, which were communicated by the Registry on Oct 04, 2024. The appeal was refiled only on March 10, 2025, well beyond the 7-day period prescribed under Rule 26(2) of the NCLAT Rules for curing defects.
Even upon refiling, the appeal remained defective on multiple counts, including the absence of a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order, unsigned IA papers, unstamped vakalatnama, non-compliance with NCLAT format, and absence of requisite court fees. The NCLAT, however, condoned the delay of 150 days in refiling upon deposit of ₹50,000/- with the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, and also held that the initial delay in filing was within the permissible 45-day outer limit.
Appearances:
Manu Krishnan G., AOR, Liju V. Stephen, Adv., Indu Susen Jacob, Adv., for Appellants
Mukund P. Unny, AOR, Vinay Mathew Joseph, Adv., Sanjay Nair S. Adv., for Respondents
