Limitation for IBC appeals commences from the date of pronouncement, not the date of uploading.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the IBC commences from the date of pronouncement of the order in open court or the date the order is uploaded on the official website?

The court held

The NCLAT held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed beyond the maximum condonable period prescribed under Section 61(2) of the IBC.

It also directed

The appeal was dismissed, though the Appellant was granted liberty to seek other legal remedies for debt realization under applicable laws.

01Facts

The Appellant, a sole proprietor, initiated Section 9 IBC proceedings against the Respondent, which were admitted on 26.10.2020.

¶ 2

Following a Settlement Agreement, the petition was withdrawn on 16.04.2021 with liberty to revive the proceedings in case of default.

¶ 2

Alleging a breach of settlement, the Appellant filed Restoration Application No. 19 of 2025, which the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Mumbai) dismissed on 21.04.2025, primarily citing a two-year delay from the last installment date.

¶ 3

The order was pronounced in open court on 21.04.2025 but uploaded to the website on 29.04.2025.

¶ 4

The Appellant filed this appeal on 10.06.2025, arguing that the limitation period should commence from the date of uploading.

¶ 4-5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the IBC commences from the date of pronouncement of the order in open court or the date the order is uploaded on the official website?

¶ 4, 7

ii.2. Whether the present appeal was filed within the statutorily prescribed 30-day period or the additional 15-day condonable window?

¶ 4, 7

03Law Applied

Section 61(2) of the IBC, which mandates a 30-day period for filing appeals with a maximum 15-day condonable extension, totaling a 45-day peremptory jurisdictional limit.

¶ 7(a)

Supreme Court’s rulings in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. (2022) and A. Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudan Rao (2025), which established that limitation begins from the date of pronouncement in open court, not from the date of uploading or receipt of a certified copy.

¶ 7(b)

Rule 89 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, regarding the requirement of pronouncing orders in open court.

¶ 6(a)

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 18

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Section 9 Section 61

04Reasoning

The Tribunal rejected the Appellant's contention that limitation should be computed from the uploading date (29.04.2025).

¶ 7(c)

It reasoned that pronouncement is a "judicial act" that imputes legal knowledge to the parties, whereas uploading is merely an "administrative act".

¶ 7(c)

Since the order explicitly recorded delivery on 21.04.2025 in the presence of counsel, the clock of limitation started on that date.

¶ 7(c)

Calculating from 21.04.2025, the 30-day period ended on 20.05.2025, and the absolute outer limit of 45 days expired on 04.06.2025.

¶ 8

As the appeal was filed on 10.06.2025, the Tribunal held it was statutorily barred, noting that it becomes "powerless" to take cognizance once the 45-day window closes.

¶ 7(b), 8

The Tribunal declined to address the merits regarding the settlement's legality under Glas Trust Company LLP v. Byju Raveendran due to this jurisdictional bar.

¶ 9