IBC Appeal Limitation Runs From Open Court Pronouncement, Not Order Uploading: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, on 6 November reiterated that limitation for filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, begins from the date an order is pronounced in open court and not from the date it is subsequently uploaded on the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) website.

A Bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha dismissed an application filed by Ajay Singh Narania seeking condonation of a 13-day delay in filing an appeal against an order passed by the NCLT, Mumbai, on 27 March 2026. It said:

“However, when the order has been passed in the presence of the counsel for the Appellant on 27.03.2026, its uploading on any subsequent date is immaterial. The limitation is to be reckoned from 27.03.2026, when the order was pronounced by the Learned Adjudicating Authority in the presence of the counsel for the parties.”

Narania contended that although the NCLT's order was dated 27 March 2026, it was uploaded on the Tribunal's website only on 8 April 2026. He argued that since the matter was not listed for pronouncement on 27 March, limitation should be calculated from the date of uploading. On this basis, he claimed that the appeal, filed on 21 May 2026, was delayed by only 13 days.

He also cited practical difficulties in coordinating with counsel and obtaining legal advice as reasons for the delay. He maintained that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and that he had made efforts to file the appeal at the earliest.

Opposing the application, the respondents submitted that the NCLT had heard the matter for the first time on 27 March 2026 and dismissed it on the same day. They argued that the order was pronounced in open court in the presence of counsel for both sides and, therefore, limitation commenced on that date.

They also pointed out that Narania had applied for a certified copy of the order only on 20 May 2026 and filed the appeal the following day, beyond even the maximum period for condonation of delay.

Upon examining the record, the NCLAT found no material to indicate that the NCLT had not pronounced the order on 27 March 2026. It noted that the order recorded the appearance of counsel for Narania and clearly established that it had been delivered on that date.

The Appellate Tribunal referred to Section 61 of the IBC, which prescribes a limitation period of 30 days for filing an appeal, with a further extension of up to 15 days upon sufficient cause being shown.

It also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited & Ors., and reiterated that limitation begins from the date of pronouncement when an order is delivered in open court. It clarified that exclusion of the time taken to obtain a certified copy is available only when the appellant applies for the copy within the prescribed limitation period.

Applying this position, the Bench held that limitation commenced on 27 March 2026 and expired on 26 April 2026. Since Narania filed the appeal on 21 May 2026, it was beyond both the prescribed 30-day period and the additional 15-day period that the Tribunal could condone under Section 61(2) of the IBC.

Accordingly, the NCLAT held that it had no jurisdiction to condone the delay and dismissed the application. Consequently, it also dismissed the appeal.