Appeal Filed Without Applying For Certified Copy Within Limitation Period Is Incompetent: NCLAT Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, on 4 November held that the failure to apply for a certified copy within the limitation period rendered the appeal incompetent under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, and the NCLAT Rules.

A Bench comprising Officiating Chairperson Justice Yogesh Khanna with Technical Members Barun Mitra and Ajai Das Mehrotra dismissed an appeal filed by a consortium comprising Anil Khandelwal and NOIDA Holdings Pvt. Ltd. It said:

“In the present case, the certified copy has been applied for after the period of limitation and thus the appeal is not merely a defective appeal but it is an incompetent appeal in terms of the requirement prescribed under the IBC, 2016 and the NCLAT Rules.”

The appeal challenged an order dated 17 July 2026 passed by the Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which rejected an application seeking approval of the resolution plan for Technofab Engineering Limited submitted by the consortium.

Along with the appeal, the appellants filed applications seeking condonation of a 14-day delay and exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned order.

They contended that they had e-filed the appeal on 29 August 2026, the 44th day from the date of the impugned order, within the maximum permissible limitation period of 45 days under Section 61 of the IBC. They attributed the delay to a change of counsel and the temporary unavailability of the authorised signatory.

Further, the appellants argued that the delay was neither deliberate nor sufficient to defeat their substantive rights. The appellants submitted that non-filing of the certified copy was a curable defect and did not render the appeal non-est or liable to dismissal at the threshold.

Lastly, they contended that the requirement to apply for a certified copy within the prescribed period was attracted only where an appellant sought exclusion of time on account of obtaining the certified copy while computing limitation.

Opposing the applications, the respondents pointed out that although the appeal had been filed on the 44th day, the appellants had not applied for a certified copy within the limitation period. The application for obtaining the certified copy was filed only on the 66th day after pronouncement of the impugned order.

They also relied on Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, which mandates that every appeal be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order.

Examining the statutory framework, the NCLAT noted that Section 61(2) of the IBC prescribes a limitation period of 30 days for filing an appeal, which may be extended by a maximum of 15 days upon sufficient cause being shown. Thus, the outer limit for filing an appeal under the provision is 45 days.

The Tribunal noted that although the appellants had filed the appeal within this outer limit, they had neither obtained nor applied for a certified copy of the impugned order within the prescribed limitation period.

It also relied on various Supreme Court decisions, it observed that applying for a certified copy is not merely a procedural formality but also demonstrates a litigant's diligence in pursuing an appellate remedy.

Summarising the legal position, the Bench held that although an appeal may initially be presented without a certified copy along with an application seeking exemption, such exemption is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

It further clarified that failure to apply for a certified copy within the limitation period renders the appeal fundamentally incompetent, rather than merely defective, as it goes to the root of the appellate jurisdiction.

Applying these principles, the Appellate Tribunal found that the appellants had applied for the certified copy only after the limitation period had expired and after their interlocutory applications had already been taken up for hearing. Therefore, the appeal had not been instituted in the manner prescribed under the IBC and the NCLAT Rules.

Accordingly, the NCLAT dismissed the applications seeking condonation of delay and exemption from filing the certified copy, treated the appeal as non-est and closed all pending applications without any order as to costs.