The Supreme Court of India has held that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) runs from the pronouncement of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order, rather than the date on which the appellant receives its certified copy. The Court clarified that while the time genuinely required to obtain a certified copy may be excluded, a party cannot exclude the period of inaction before applying for it.
The ruling in The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Division v. Sreenivasa Rao Ravinuthala and Another, delivered on 14 October 2026, reiterates the strict approach to limitation under the IBC. The LiveLaw report on the Supreme Court’s decision sets out the Court’s reasoning and the calculation that led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from an NCLAT order dated 2 August 2023 concerning the resolution plan of Samyu Glass Private Limited. The Revenue challenged the order before the Supreme Court under Section 62 of the IBC.
The Revenue applied for a certified copy of the NCLAT order on 6 September 2023 and received it on 11 October 2023. The appeal was filed on 21 November 2023. The respondent challenged its maintainability on the ground that it exceeded the statutory limitation period.
The Revenue contended that limitation should be calculated from the date of receipt of the certified copy. The Supreme Court had to determine whether this interpretation was consistent with Section 62 and the applicable provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Supreme Court’s Findings
Section 62 of the IBC provides 45 days to file an appeal before the Supreme Court on a question of law arising from an NCLAT order. The Court may condone a delay of up to a further 15 days if sufficient cause is established. The maximum permissible period is therefore 60 days.
The Court rejected the argument that limitation should begin only when the appellant receives the certified copy. Such an interpretation would allow the deadline to depend on when a litigant chooses to apply for or collect the copy, making the statutory limitation period uncertain.
The Court relied on its earlier decisions in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure and Developers Private Limited. These decisions underscore the need for diligence when pursuing remedies under the IBC.
The Court also considered Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, which permits exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order under challenge. However, the provision does not allow a party to disregard the time spent before applying for the certified copy. The distinction is between time genuinely required for obtaining the document and delay attributable to the litigant’s own inaction.
How the Limitation Period Was Calculated?
In this case, 35 days elapsed between the NCLAT’s order on 2 August 2023 and the Revenue’s application for a certified copy on 6 September 2023. This period counted towards limitation.
The 35 days taken by the Registry to provide the copy, from 6 September to 11 October 2023, were excluded. On receiving the copy, the Revenue had 10 days remaining within the original 45-day period, with a further maximum of 15 days available for condonation.
However, the appeal was filed 41 days after receipt of the certified copy. The Court calculated the relevant periods as 35 days before the application and 41 days after receipt, totalling 76 days. This exceeded the statutory ceiling of 60 days by 16 days.
The Supreme Court consequently dismissed the appeal as time-barred without examining the merits of the underlying dispute.
Implications for Parties to Insolvency Proceedings
The ruling is relevant to creditors, corporate debtors, resolution applicants and other parties considering an appeal against an NCLAT order. It makes clear that waiting to apply for a certified copy can consume a significant part of the available limitation period.
Parties should record the date of pronouncement, apply for the certified copy promptly and prepare their appeal without avoidable delay. The exclusion under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act is limited to the time requisite for obtaining the copy; it does not provide an automatic extension for administrative or internal delays on the appellant’s side.
The decision also confirms that the additional 15-day period under Section 62 is a strict outer limit, not an entitlement to an extension in every case. Once the statutory ceiling is exceeded, the appeal may be dismissed without consideration of its substantive grounds.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that limitation under Section 62 of the IBC must be calculated in accordance with the statutory framework. Receipt of a certified copy does not restart the limitation period, and delay in applying for it remains relevant to the calculation.
For parties involved in insolvency proceedings, the decision highlights the importance of prompt procedural action after an NCLAT order is pronounced. Failure to comply with the prescribed timeline may prevent an appeal from being heard on its merits.
