NCLAT Cannot Dispense with Mandatory Filing of Certified Copy of Impugned Order: SC

The Supreme Court on August 12, 2025, set aside a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment after holding that the tribunal could not exercise its discretionary powers to completely dispense with the statutory requirement of filing a certified copy of the impugned order along with an appeal.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma held that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, which uses the word “shall”, mandates that “every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order”.

While Rules 14 and 15 confer powers on the NCLAT to grant exemptions or extend time, such powers cannot be exercised in a manner that renders Rule 22(2) nugatory.

The court clarified that even if the NCLAT entertains an appeal within the initial 30-day period without a certified copy, by granting temporary exemption, this can only be for a limited duration to enable later compliance.

“Such exemption cannot be to the extent of completely dispensing with the filing of a certified copy, which would annihilate the clear mandate of Rule 22(2),” the bench emphasised.

Referring to V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. (2022), the court reiterated that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is a time-bound framework and Rule 22(2) cannot be diluted. It recalled that V. Nagarajan had underscored the legislative intent to require proactive steps from aggrieved parties, holding that the act of filing an application for a certified copy is not merely technical but an indication of diligence in pursuing litigation. Any waiver from this requirement can only be temporary and for judicial determination, not to dispense with it altogether.

The court also relied on its recent three-judge bench decision in A. Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao (2025), which affirmed that when a judgment is pronounced in open court, limitation starts from that date, with Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act permitting exclusion only for the period during which a certified copy was under preparation, provided the application for such copy was made within the limitation period.

Applying these principles, the bench held that the respondent could not rely on the date of uploading of the order on June 26, 2023, as limitation began on June 23, 2023, when the NCLT pronounced it in open court.

The absence of a timely application for a certified copy, along with the failure to seek exemption or condonation at the time of filing, meant the appeal was improperly instituted. The NCLAT, however, failed to examine this crucial issue of limitation, even though the appellants had specifically raised it.

The Top Court observed that “the impugned judgment delivered on merits is essentially a superstructure erected on an illusory foundation and cannot, therefore, be sustained,” and set aside NCLAT’s July 1, 2024 decision in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1308 of 2023.

Brief Background

The case arose from a challenge by DSK Global Education and Research Pvt. Ltd. to a June 23, 2023 order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, approving the resolution plan of Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd.

The order was pronounced on June 23, 2023 and uploaded on June 26, 2023. DSK Global e-filed its appeal before the NCLAT on July 25, 2023, without annexing a certified copy of the order, without applying for exemption from this requirement, and without seeking condonation of delay.

The certified copy was applied for only on August 23, 2023, received on September 7, 2023, and filed thereafter.

The application for condonation of a two-day delay was moved belatedly on September 22, 2023.

Case Title: Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. DSK Global Education and Research Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Date of Judgment: August 12, 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma