The Supreme Court has ruled that an appeal filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) without a certified copy of the challenged order cannot be treated as a valid appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Court observed that merely e-filing an appeal within the limitation period is not enough if mandatory procedural requirements are ignored.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran passed the judgment in a dispute involving the approval of a resolution plan submitted by Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association.
Background of the Case
The matter arose after M. Lalitha challenged an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench, which had approved the resolution plan submitted by Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association in insolvency proceedings concerning Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Her appeal before the NCLAT was e-filed on September 28, 2024, which was the final day within the condonable limitation period under Section 61(2) of the IBC. She also filed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal.
The NCLAT later condoned both delays, including a 150-day delay in refiling, subject to payment of costs of ₹50,000.
Supreme Court Observations
The Supreme Court closely examined the scrutiny report of the NCLAT Registry and found that several defects in the appeal remained uncured even after refiling. One major defect was the absence of a certified copy of the NCLT order being challenged.
The Bench noted that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules clearly requires every appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. Referring to its earlier decision in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd., the Court reiterated that obtaining a certified copy is not a mere technical formality but a sign of diligence by the litigant.
“The appeal, as filed and refiled, was not a merely defective appeal… but was a wholly incompetent appeal,” the Bench observed.
The Court pointed out that the appellant had not even applied for a certified copy until April 21, 2025, long after refiling the appeal on March 10, 2025. The certified copy was eventually collected only in June 2025.
The Bench further remarked that the respondent had also failed to seek exemption from filing the certified copy at the time of filing or refiling the appeal. According to the Court, the NCLAT should first have examined whether the appeal itself was validly instituted before granting relief on delay condonation applications.
Court Decision
Allowing the civil appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT’s order dated November 10, 2025, which had condoned the delays in filing and refiling the appeal.
The Court held that the appeal filed by M. Lalitha was “incurably tainted” and liable to be rejected at the threshold itself. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M Lalitha & Anr.
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 14439–14440 of 2025
Judges: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Decision Date: May 12, 2026
