The Supreme Court held that an appeal filed before the NCLAT without a certified copy of the impugned order is a “wholly incompetent appeal” and not a mere defective filing capable of later cure.
Supreme Court Says Appeal Without Certified Copy Under IBC Is “Wholly Incompetent”
The Supreme Court has ruled that an appeal filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) without a certified copy of the challenged order is not just defective. The Court said such an appeal is “wholly incompetent” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the judgment in the case involving Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association.
Background Of The Case
The dispute arose from insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal. On August 14, 2024, the NCLT approved a resolution plan submitted by the Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association.
The first respondent, who is the mother of the suspended director of the corporate debtor, challenged the NCLT order before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was electronically filed on September 28, 2024, which was the last day within the condonable limitation period under Section 61 of the IBC. However, the appeal did not include a certified copy of the NCLT order.
The Supreme Court noted that defects in the filing were later pointed out. Even then, the appeal was refiled after 150 days without the certified copy. The respondent applied for the certified copy only on April 21, 2025.
Despite this delay, the NCLAT condoned the delay in filing and refiling the appeal. This prompted the successful resolution applicant to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court On Certified Copy Requirement
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the respondent failed to follow the mandatory procedural requirements for filing an appeal before the NCLAT.
Writing the judgment, Justice Sanjay Kumar said a litigant must apply for a certified copy before the limitation period expires.
The Court observed:
The Bench also said a diligent litigant should apply for the certified copy within the limitation period. This allows the litigant to seek exclusion of the time spent obtaining the copy.
‘Wholly Incompetent Appeal’
The Court clarified the difference between a defective appeal and an incompetent appeal. It held that the present case involved an incompetent appeal.
The Bench further held that the NCLAT failed to examine whether the appeal had been validly instituted before condoning the delay.
Final Order
The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT order and allowed the appeal filed by the Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association.
