Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.61 – National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 – rr.22, 26(2) – Respondent No. 1 e-filed Company Appeal with delay before NCLAT without certified copy of the impugned order passed by NCLT – Defects intimated by Registry – Appeal refiled with a delay of 150 days again without the certified copy of the order impugned – NCLAT allowed the applications filed by respondent No.1 seeking condonation of delay in the filing and the refiling of the appeal – Interference with: Held: Order passed by NCLAT set aside – Respondent No.1 chose to e-file an appeal against order dated 14.08.2024 on the very last day available to her, in terms of the limitation prescribed under the proviso to s.61(2) – However, the filing of such appeal, without even applying for a certified copy of the order dated 14.08.2024, practically meant that there was no filing of an appeal in the eyes of law – A diligent litigant is expected to apply for a certified copy of the order sought to be appealed against before the period of limitation runs out and, by doing so, such litigant would be entitled to seek exclusion of the time taken to procure the certified copy for the purpose of limitation – However, Respondent No.1 did not even apply for a certified copy of the NCLT’s order dated 14.08.2024 till 21.04.2025, long after the refiling of the appeal on 10.03.2025 – To make matters worse, respondent No.1 did not even choose to file an application for exemption from filing such certified copy at any point, be it at the time of filing the appeal on 28.09.2024 or its refiling on 10.03.2025 – This was the minimum requirement for respondent No.1 to have complied with, when she filed and refiled her appeal without a certified copy of the NCLT’s order dated 14.08.2024 – Appeal, as filed and refiled, was not a merely defective appeal, wherein the defects could be cured, but was a wholly incompetent appeal that did not satisfy the essentials to pass muster, in terms of the requirements prescribed under the Code and the NCLAT Rules – However, the NCLAT totally lost sight of these vital aspects while considering the two applications filed by respondent No.1 seeking condonation of delay in the filing and the refiling of the appeal – NCLAT ought not to have extended such indulgence to respondent No.1, without first ascertaining whether her appeal was instituted in accordance with the norms – Filing/refiling of the appeal by respondent No.1 was incurably tainted and the same ought to have been rejected at the threshold. [Paras 9-11]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.