Delay in Filing Appeal Without Seeking Certified Copy Bars Relief Under IBC

NCLAT held that a delay in filing an appeal without seeking a certified copy of the impugned order bars relief under the IBC.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Mr. Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member), reviewed a set of two company appeals along with connected interlocutory applications for condonation of delay. The Bench observed that, in the absence of any effort by the appellants to apply for a certified copy of the impugned orders, the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) must be computed from the date of the order itself, and not from the date of knowledge or uploading. Since the appeals were filed beyond the statutory maximum period of 45 days, they were held to be time-barred and consequently dismissed.

In the matters of Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) Nos. 43/2025 and 44/2025, titled Koneru Subbiah Chowdry vs Indian Overseas Bank, ASMB Hyderabad & Anr. and Mrs. K. Uma Chowdry vs Indian Overseas Bank, ASMB Hyderabad & Anr., the Appellants challenged the impugned orders dated 02.12.2024, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. These orders were rendered in IA Nos. 2276/2024 and 2277/2024, respectively, arising out of CP (IB) No. 35 (HYD) 2022 and CP (IB) No. 37 (HYD) 2022. Both appeals were accompanied by applications for condonation of delay, IA No. 153/2025 and IA No. 155/2025, wherein the Appellants prayed for condonation of a 15-day delay in filing.

It was admitted by the Appellants in their respective applications that they gained knowledge of the impugned orders on 07.12.2024 and that the orders were uploaded on 16.12.2024. The Registry reported that the appeals were e-filed on 21.01.2025, which led to a calculated delay of 20 days. Crucially, the record reflected that the Appellants had not applied for a certified copy of the impugned orders at any point after acquiring knowledge of the same. The appeals were filed without attaching certified copies, and instead, applications seeking exemption from such filing were submitted. This, by implication, constituted an admission that certified copies were never applied for prior to filing the appeals.

The Tribunal observed that in the absence of any step taken by the Appellants to obtain certified copies, the limitation period could not be computed from the date of knowledge or uploading of the impugned orders. Accordingly, limitations had to be reckoned from the date of the orders themselves, i.e., 02.12.2024. As per Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with its proviso, the maximum allowable period for filing an appeal is 45 days, including the condonable period. Since the appeals were filed beyond this maximum period, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the delay.

Consequently, both Delay Condonation Applications, IA No. 153/2025 and IA No. 155/2025, were rejected. As a natural consequence of this rejection, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) Nos. 43/2025 and 44/2025 were dismissed as barred by limitation.

Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, Advocate, represented the Appellant.

Ms. Pavithra Dayalan, Advocate, appeared for the Respondent No. 1.

Ms. Aishwarya, Advocate for Mr. VVSN Raju, Advocate, appeared for the Respondent No. 2.

---

Subscribers can access premium content such as the full text of the case, detailed analysis, ratio decidendi, headnotes, legal research, cited case laws, and the latest updates on statutes, notifications, and more. To subscribe, please click Subscribe.

If you are a subscriber, please explore these resources by clicking the following citation/link.

Read Order