S. 62 IBC | Limitation For Filing Appeal Runs From NCLAT Order Pronouncement, Not Receipt Of Certified Copy : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 14) has held that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 begins from the date the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal pronounces its order, and not from the date on which the appellant receives the certified copy.

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that the time spent by a litigant in applying for and obtaining a certified copy can be excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, but the period of inaction before applying for the copy cannot be excluded.

The Court reiterated that Section 62 of the IBC prescribes a limitation period of 45 days for filing an appeal before the Supreme Court, with a further 15 days available for condonation of delay. The 60-day outer limit cannot be extended.

“The phrase “from the date of receipt of the order” in Section 62(1) cannot be read as the date on which a party chooses to apply for and collect a certified copy. If the limitation clock remained suspended until physical collection at the litigant's leisure, the limitation period would then become fluctuating and indefinite.”, the Court said.

The Revenue filed the appeal before the Supreme Court on November 21, 2023 against the NCLAT order. It had applied for a certified copy of the NCLAT order on September 6, 2023, and received it on October 11, 2023.

Rejecting the Revenue's contention that limitation should be computed from the date of receipt of the certified copy, the judgment authored by Justice Bhatti explained that such an interpretation would make the limitation period indefinite and undermine the statutory scheme governing appeals under the IBC.

“If the Appellant's argument that the limitation period begins on the day the copy of the Order is received is accepted, it would nullify both the limitation period and the condonable period, and make the right of Appeal subject to an indefinite and fluctuating period of limitation.”, the Court said.

The Court relied on its decisions in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure and Developers Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 611.

Applying these principles, the Court calculated that the Revenue had allowed 35 days to elapse before applying for the certified copy. Although the 35 days taken by the Registry to provide the copy were excluded, the Revenue had only 10 days remaining in the original 45-day limitation period upon receiving the copy, followed by a maximum condonable period of 15 days (total 25 days).

The appeal, filed 41 days after receipt of the certified copy, was therefore beyond the maximum permissible period.

“Summing the actionable periods, i.e., 35 days before applying for the certified copy and 41 days after receiving it, yields a total of 76 days. The absolute statutory ceiling under Section 62 of the IBC is 60 days, i.e., 45 days plus 15 condonable days. Even after excluding the time taken to prepare the certified copy, the Appeal was filed 16 days beyond the absolute outer limit of this Court's jurisdiction to condone delay. Applying the above discussion to the present case, the Appeal is beyond the limitation period.”. the Court held.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G. (N.P.) Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Sr. Adv. (N.P.) Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Saurav Roy, Adv. Ms. Kanu Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anshu Deshpande, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Shradha Agrawal, AOR Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ayshwarya Chandar, AOR Mr. Shabbeer Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Aneesh V, Adv. Mr. Mridul Godha, Adv.