IBC Appeal Limitation Runs From NCLAT Order, Not Receipt Of Certified Copy: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the limitation period for an appeal against an NCLAT order would run from the date the order is provided, and not from the date a certified copy is obtained.

“Assuming that under the NCLAT Rules, 2016, there is an obligation to provide copy of the order to the parties, the period of limitation would run from the date when the order is provided under NCLAT Rules, 2016, and not from the date when certified copy is obtained,” a Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed.

The court also explained why limitation cannot be made dependent on when a party chooses to obtain a certified copy.

“Because if we assume that the limitation would run only from the date when the certified copy is received by an aggrieved party, the aggrieved party may avoid applying for a certified copy to ensure that limitation period does not commence,” the court observed.

The observation came while the court was hearing an appeal filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) March 2026 order in the dispute concerning Vas Data Services Pvt Ltd.

The appeal was filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Supreme Court record shows that the appeal was reported to be 28 days beyond time. The court had therefore given EPFO an opportunity to contest the registry's report.

EPFO told the Supreme Court that it received the certified copy of the NCLAT order on 25 March 2026. It claimed that the appeal had been filed within 60 days from that date.

The court, however, found that EPFO's delay in condoning the application and additional affidavit did not disclose when it had applied for the certified copy.

The court then considered Rule 95(3) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. The provision states that the Deputy Registrar shall transmit the case file and order to the registry for taking steps to prepare copies and communicate them to the parties.

The underlying dispute concerns EPFO's claim of Rs 1,78,18,960 against Vas Data Services.

Vas Data Services was admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) on 9 April 2019. The moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC came into play with the commencement of CIRP. The Committee of Creditors approved the resolution plan on 6 August 2020.

EPFO continued its assessment proceedings and passed an assessment order on 21 November 2023, raising a demand of Rs 1,78,18,960. It later filed an application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which allowed its claim by an order dated 21 March 2025.

The Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors challenged the NCLT order before the NCLAT. They argued that EPFO could not continue assessment proceedings during the Section 14 moratorium. They also contended that a claim based on an assessment carried out during the moratorium could not be pressed in the CIRP.

The NCLAT accepted these contentions.

Relying on its earlier decision in Employees' Provident Fund Organisation v. Jaykumar Pesumal Arlani, the tribunal held that after the Section 14 moratorium begins, EPFO cannot continue assessment proceedings. It also held that a claim based on an assessment carried out during the moratorium cannot be pressed in the CIRP.

The tribunal noted that EPFO's assessment order dated 21 November 2023 was passed during the moratorium. It held that the assessment order and claims arising from it were “clearly unenforceable during the subsistence of moratorium.”

The NCLAT consequently set aside the NCLT's order and directed that the adverse remarks made against the Resolution Professional be expunged.

The court directed EPFO to file a better affidavit disclosing whether any copy of the order was transmitted to the parties or their counsel “either through email or through any other mode of communication.”

The matter has been listed after two weeks.

The court has also directed that an affidavit explaining these aspects be filed in the meantime.

For Appellant: Ajit Sharma, AOR, Advocates Kanchan Kumar Singh, Yuvrajsinh C Solanki, Anant Ram Mishra, Lareb Habib Ansari, Shweta Jain