Filing IBC Appeal Without Certified Copy or Exemption Application Is Incurably Defective and Time-Barred

The Appellant’s resolution plan regarding the corporate debtor, Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., was approved by the NCLT, Kochi, on 14.08.2024.

Respondent No. 1 (a purported financial creditor) e-filed an appeal before the NCLAT, Chennai, on 28.08.2024—the final day of the 45-day outer limit prescribed by the IBC.

The appeal was filed with defects, and the registry communicated these on 04.10.2024.

Respondent No. 1 refiled the appeal on 10.03.2025 (a 150-day delay) still without a certified copy of the impugned order.

The NCLAT condoned both the 15-day delay in filing and the 150-day delay in refiling via a common order dated 10.11.2025, treating refiling as a matter between the court and the appellant.

1. Whether an appeal filed under Section 61 of the IBC without a certified copy of the impugned order, or an application for its exemption, constitutes a valid institution of an appeal in the eyes of law.

2. Whether the NCLAT was justified in condoning the delay in filing and refiling despite the appellant’s failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements.

Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which mandates strict timelines for filing appeals.

Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, which stipulates that every appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order.

The obligation to apply for a certified copy is not a mere technicality but a measure of a party’s diligence (V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited).

Strict timelines in the IBC are of the essence (Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. CoC of Educomp Solutions Limited).

Rules 14 and 15 of the NCLAT Rules provide the court power to exempt compliance, but such waiver is not an automatic right.

The Court observed that Respondent No. 1 e-filed the appeal on the literal last day of the condonable period without attaching a certified copy of the NCLT order or even applying for one until April 2025—long after the limitation period and the date of refiling had passed.

The Court reasoned that since Rule 22(2) is mandatory, filing an appeal without the certified copy (and without an application for exemption under Rules 14 or 15) rendered the appeal "incompetent" and "non-est" in the eyes of law rather than merely "defective".

The Court critiqued the NCLAT for failing to scrutinize whether the appeal was properly instituted according to legal norms before granting the indulgence of condoning a 150-day refiling delay.

The lack of diligence—evidenced by the delay in collecting the certified copy until June 2025—precluded the respondent from claiming the benefit of time exclusion.

The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the NCLAT’s order dated 10.11.2025, effectively dismissing Respondent No. 1’s appeal at the threshold for being incompetent.