Supreme Court reaffirms strict adherence to timelines under the IBC

In the case of A. Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors., 2025 INSC 447 dated April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (“NCLAT”) decision to dismiss appeals filed by Mr. Rajendra, a shareholder and suspended Managing Director of Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”), due to delay in filing and procedural lapses. Mr. Rajendra had originally challenged two orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated July 20, 2023, one rejecting his request to present his Resolution Plans to the Committee of Creditors (CoC), and the other approving a competing plan submitted by a consortium. . The appellant initially filed appeals before the Ld. NCLAT without applications for condonation of delay, claiming they were within the statutory period of Section 61 of the IBC. However, the respondents raised objections regarding limitation, leading the appellant to subsequently file applications for condonation of delay. The Ld. NCLAT dismissed these applications, citing the appellant’s suppression of facts and incorrect averments that he had applied for certified copies and that the appeals were within time. It was later admitted that the appellant had not applied for any certified copy of the orders.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Ld. NCLAT’s decision, dismissing the appeals as barred by limitation. The Court held:

• The limitation period of 30 days for filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the IBC commences from the date of pronouncement of the order. This is distinct from Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, where the period begins upon the copy of the order being made available.
• The Ld. NCLAT’s power to condone delay is strictly limited to an additional period of 15 days beyond the initial 30 days, only if “sufficient cause” is shown. This extension is not a matter of right and must be construed strictly, reflecting the legislative intent of the time-bound framework of IBC. The Ld. NCLAT has no jurisdiction to condone delay exceeding 15 days.
• To avail the benefit of excluding the time taken for preparing a certified copy under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, it is mandatory for the appellant to have applied for and obtained a certified copy.
• Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules mandates that an appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. The Court emphasized that parties cannot be automatically dispensed with this obligation.
• The appellant’s failure to apply for a certified copy rendered the appeals clearly barred by limitation. The NCLAT was justified in dismissing the condonation applications due to the absence of pleaded sufficient cause and the appellant’s misrepresentation of facts.

In light of this judgment, it is advisable for litigants and their legal counsel to be extremely diligent in adhering to the statutory timelines for filing appeals as this judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the strict procedural discipline required under the IBC regime.

It serves as a crucial reminder that it is imperative to promptly apply for certified copies of orders, as the mere pronouncement triggers the limitation period, and failure to apply for a copy will preclude any claim for exclusion of time for its preparation. Companies and individuals involved in insolvency proceedings should ensure their internal processes and legal strategies account for these stringent timelines and documentary requirements to avoid appeals being dismissed on procedural grounds.