The central finding in the uploaded Supreme Court judgment is clear: a party cannot postpone the limitation period for an appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) merely by waiting to collect a certified copy of the NCLAT order. The Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred after accounting for the time spent before applying for the copy and the time taken to file the appeal after receiving it.
Background
The dispute arose from insolvency proceedings involving Samyu Glass Private Limited. The NCLT, Hyderabad, approved a resolution plan on August 13, 2021, which provided ₹1,34,657 towards excise arrears claimed by the Central Tax Department. The department challenged the plan before the NCLAT, Chennai, but the tribunal upheld the approval on August 2, 2023.
The Central Tax Department approached the Supreme Court on November 21, 2023, under Section 62 of the IBC. The respondents objected that the appeal exceeded the statutory deadline.
A Bench comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria examined Section 62 of the IBC alongside Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court explained that the time genuinely required to obtain a certified copy can be excluded, but the period before a party applies for that copy cannot be excluded.
The judgment observed:
“The phrase ‘from the date of receipt of the order’ in Section 62(1) cannot be read as the date on which a party chooses to apply for and collect a certified copy. If the limitation clock remained suspended until physical collection at the litigant’s leisure, the limitation period would then become fluctuating and indefinite.”
The Court also relied on Rule 91 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, which addresses pronouncement of orders in open court. It held that limitation begins when the NCLAT pronounces its order, rather than when a litigant decides to obtain the certified copy.
The NCLAT pronounced its order on August 2, 2023. The department applied for a certified copy on September 6, 2023, and received it on October 11, 2023. The 35 days before applying for the copy counted towards the limitation period, while the 35 days spent obtaining it were excluded.
After receiving the copy, the department had only 10 days remaining within the initial 45-day period, followed by a maximum additional 15 days for condonation of delay. The appeal, filed on November 21, 2023, exceeded the overall 60-day limit.
The Court further observed that accepting the department's interpretation would undermine the statutory deadline.
The Supreme Court sustained the preliminary objection and dismissed the civil appeal as barred by limitation.
It made no order as to costs and disposed of any pending applications.
Case Details
- Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Division v. Sreenivasa Rao Ravinuthala and Another
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7882 of 2023
- Judges: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
- Decision Date: October 14, 2026
