IBC | Appeals Must Be Filed With Certified Copy Of Impugned Order, Mere E-Filing Not Enough: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 12) observed that an e-filing of an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) without a certified copy of the impugned order is not a mere defective filing but a “wholly incompetent appeal” that cannot subsequently be cured.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's order condoning a 150-day delay in refiling an appeal that had been instituted without a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order.

The case arose from insolvency proceedings where the NCLT Kochi approved a resolution plan submitted by the Appellant-Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association on August 14, 2024.

Respondent, a mother of the suspended director of the corporate debtor, challenged the order before the NCLAT. Although the appeal was e-filed on September 28, 2024, the last day of the condonable period under Section 61 of the IBC, it was filed without a certified copy of the NCLT order.

Even after defects were notified, the appeal was refiled after 150 days without the certified copy, which was applied for only on April 21, 2025.

Despite these lapses, the NCLAT condoned the delays, prompting the successful resolution applicant to move to the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar faulted the NCLAT for condoning the delays in preferring the refiling of an appeal by the Respondent, which was made without a certified copy of the impugned order. The Court said that the Respondent ought to have applied for the impugned order certified copy in advance before preferring an appeal, as failure to do so rendered the refiling of an appeal as no filing of an appeal.

“…the filing of such (re) appeal, without even applying for a certified copy of the order…, practically meant that there was no filing of an appeal in the eyes of law. As pointed out by this Court, a diligent litigant is expected to apply for a certified copy of the order sought to be appealed against before the period of limitation runs out and, by doing so, such litigant would be entitled to seek exclusion of the time taken to procure the certified copy for the purpose of limitation.”, the court observed.

“In effect, the appeal, as filed and refiled, was not a merely defective appeal, wherein the defects could be cured, but was a  wholly incompetent appeal that did not satisfy the essentials to pass muster, in terms of the requirements prescribed under the Code and the NCLAT Rules. However, the NCLAT totally lost sight of these vital aspects while considering the two applications filed by respondent No. 1 seeking condonation of delay in the filing and the refiling of the appeal. The NCLAT ought not to have extended such indulgence to respondent No. 1, without first ascertaining whether her appeal was instituted in accordance with the norms. We find that the NCLAT failed to undertake this exercise.”, the court added.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned NCLAT order was set aside.

Cause Title: Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association versus M Lalitha and another

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 491

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Manu Krishnan G., AOR Mr. Liju V. Stephen, Adv. Mr Indu Susen Jacob, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukund P. Unny , AOR Mr. Vinay Mathew Joseph, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Nair S. Adv.