Supreme Court Says Appeal Without Certified Copy Was "Wholly Incompetent," Sets Aside NCLAT Order Condoning Delay

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside an NCLAT order condoning delays in filing and refiling an insolvency appeal against the approval of a resolution plan for Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd, holding that the appeal was a “wholly incompetent appeal” as there was effectively no filing of a valid appeal in the eyes of the law.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the NCLAT's November 10, 2025 order condoning delays of 15 days in filing and 150 days in refiling the appeal filed by M. Lalitha, mother of a suspended director of the corporate debtor, who claims to be its financial creditor.

“In effect, the 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.”

The Court said the NCLAT should not have condoned the delays without first examining whether the appeal had been properly instituted at all.

“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. The 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. We find that the NCLAT failed to undertake this exercise.”

The dispute arose after the NCLT Kochi Bench approved the resolution plan submitted by the Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association on August 14, 2024, in the insolvency proceedings of Samson and Sons Builders and Developers.

Lalitha e-filed an appeal before the NCLAT Chennai on September 28, 2024, the last permissible day within the condonable limitation period.

However, the Supreme Court said there was no filing of an appeal in the eyes of the law, as Lalitha had neither filed a certified copy of the NCLT order nor even applied for one before the limitation expired. It also noted that she never sought exemption from filing the certified copy.

“However, as noted earlier, 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.”

The NCLAT registry had pointed out defects in the appeal on October 4, 2024. The appeal was refiled only on March 10, 2025. Even then, several defects remained uncured, including the non-filing of the certified copy.

Relying on its earlier ruling in V. Nagarajan vs SKS Ispat and Power Limited, the Supreme Court reiterated that parties cannot automatically dispense with the requirement of obtaining and filing a certified copy while preferring an appeal under Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules. It said a litigant must apply for the certified copy before the expiry of the limitation if they seek exclusion of the time taken to obtain it.

Holding that the filing and refiling of the appeal were incurably tainted, the court allowed the appeals and set aside the NCLAT's delay condonation order.