Supreme Court of India
ANGELWOODS APARTMENT ALLOTTEES ASSOCIATIONversusM LALITHA AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 479
- Decided
- 12 May 2026
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- SANJAY KUMAR
Holding
An appeal under Section 61 that is filed or refiled without the mandatory certified copy of the impugned order is incurably tainted and must be rejected at the threshold.
Summary
The appellant, Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association, challenged the approval of its resolution plan by the NCLT, which was appealed by respondent M Lalitha, a financial creditor, under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Lalitha filed the appeal on the last permissible day but failed to attach a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order, a mandatory requirement under Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules. After the Registry flagged multiple defects, Lalitha refiled the appeal after a 150‑day delay, still without the certified copy, and sought condonation of both filing and refiling delays. The NCLAT condoned the delays, but the Supreme Court held that the appeal was fundamentally incompetent because the essential requirement of a certified copy was never satisfied and no exemption application was made. Citing V. Nagarajan and Ebix Singapore decisions, the Court emphasized the duty of a diligent litigant to obtain the certified copy before the limitation period expires. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT order and allowed the appeals, directing each party to bear its own costs.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code without a certified copy of the impugned order is a valid appeal.
- Whether the NCLAT could condone the delay in filing and refiling of such an appeal despite the absence of the certified copy.
- Whether the appeal, as filed and refiled, is merely defective and curable or wholly incompetent.
Legislation cited
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016s. 61, s. 61(2)
- National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016s. 22, s. 26(2)
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the filing/refiling of the appeal by respondent No.1 was incurably tainted and ought to have been rejected at the threshold by NCLAT. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.61 – National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 Respondent No. 1 e-filed Company Appeal with delay before NCLAT without certified copy of the impugned order passed by NCLT – Defects intimated by Registry – Appeal refiled with a delay of 150 days again without the certified copy of the order impugned – NCLAT allowed the
Subjects
Company Appeal e-filed with delayCompany Appeal e-filed without certified copy of the impugned orderCompany Appeal refiled with delayAppeal filed without certified copy of impugned orderIncompetent appealDefective appealCondonation of delay in filing of appealCondonation of delay in refiling of appealAppeal not instituted in accordance with normsSection 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016Proviso to Section 61(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016Rule 26(2) of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016Rule 22 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016Filing/refiling of appealStrict timelines provided in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016Diligent litigantCertified copy of the order appealed against
Judgment
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 577 : 2026 INSC 479
Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association
v.
M Lalitha and Another
(Civil Appeal No(s). 14439-14440 of 2025)
12 May 2026
[Sanjay Kumar* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the filing/refiling of the appeal by respondent No.1 was
incurably tainted and ought to have been rejected at the threshold
by NCLAT.
Headnotes†
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.61 – National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 – rr.22, 26(2) –
Respondent No. 1 e-filed Company Appeal with delay before
NCLAT without certified copy of the impugned order passed
by NCLT – Defects intimated by Registry – Appeal refiled with
a delay of 150 days again without the certified copy of the
order impugned – NCLAT allowed the applications filed by
respondent No.1 seeking condonation of delay in the filing
and the refiling of the appeal – Interference with:
Held: Order passed by NCLAT set aside – Respondent No.1 chose
to e-file an appeal against order dated 14.08.2024 on the very last
day available to her, in terms of the limitation prescribed under the
proviso to s.61(2) – However, the filing of such appeal, without
even applying for a certified copy of the order dated 14.08.2024,
practically meant that there was no filing of an appeal in the eyes
of law – A diligent litigant is expected to apply for a certified copy
of the order sought to be appealed against before the period of
limitation runs out and, by doing so, such litigant would be entitled
to seek exclusion of the time taken to procure the certified copy for
the purpose of limitation – However, 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
* Author
578 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – Filing/
refiling of the appeal by respondent No.1 was incurably tainted and
the same ought to have been rejected at the threshold. [Paras 9-11]
Case Law Cited
V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Others [2021]
14 SCR 736 : (2022) 2 SCC 244 – relied on.
Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors
of Educomp Solutions Limited and Another [2021] 14 SCR
321 : (2022) 2 SCC 401 – referred to.
List of Acts
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; National Company Law
Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016.
List of Keywords
Company Appeal e-filed with delay; Company Appeal e-filed without
certified copy of the impugned order; Company Appeal refiled
with delay; Appeal filed without certified copy of impugned order;
Incompetent appeal; Defective appeal; Condonation of delay in filing
of appeal; Condonation of delay in refiling of appeal; Appeal not
instituted in accordance with norms; Section 61 of Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Proviso to Section 61(2) of Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Rule 26(2) of the National Company Law
Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016; Rule 22 of the National Company
Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016; Filing/refiling of appeal; Strict
timelines provided in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016;
Diligent litigant; Certified copy of the order appealed against.
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 579
Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M Lalitha and Another
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).
14439-14440 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2025 of the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in IA Nos. 1164 and
1165 of 2025.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Manu Krishnan G., Liju V. Stephen, Indu Susen Jacob.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Mukund P. Unny, Vinay Mathew Joseph, Sanjay Nair S.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Kumar, J
1. The very institution of an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 20161, is in issue.
2. Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 252 of 2025 was e-filed on
28.09.2024 by M Lalitha, respondent No. 1 herein, before the
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (NCLAT).
Therein, she challenged the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by
the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench (NCLT), in IA
(IBC)/216/KOB/2023 in CP(IB)/05/KOB/2021. By the said order, the
NCLT had approved the resolution plan submitted by Angelwoods
Apartment Allottees Association, the appellant. Respondent No.1,
the mother of a suspended director of the corporate debtor, viz.,
Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., also claimed
to be its financial creditor and sought to challenge the approval of
the appellant’s resolution plan.
3. Respondent No.1’s appeal, e-filed on 28.09.2024, was with delay
and IA No. 1164 of 2025 was filed by her seeking condonation of the
delay of 15 days in its presentation. While so, on 04.10.2024, the
1 For brevity, ‘the Code’
580 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Registry of the NCLAT communicated the defects in the said appeal.
The defects were supposedly rectified with delay and an application
in IA No. 1165 of 2025 was filed seeking condonation of the delay
of 150 days in the refiling of the appeal after the curing of defects.
4. The two delay condonation applications were taken up together
on 10.11.2025 by the NCLAT. Though the appellant opposed the
condonation of such delay, the NCLAT opined that, insofar as the
delay in refiling was concerned, condonation thereof was a matter
exclusively between it and the appellant. Holding so, the NCLAT
condoned the delay of 150 days in the refiling of the appeal, upon
deposit of costs of ₹50,000/- with the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.
As regards the delay in filing, the NCLAT observed that the same
was within the permissible upper limit of 45 days, stipulated under the
proviso to Section 61(2) of the Code. Both the IAs were accordingly
allowed, vide order dated 10.11.2025. It is this common order dated
10.11.2025 passed by the NCLAT which is subjected to challenge
before us presently.
5. Taking note of the fact that the appeal in question was filed before
the NCLAT with defects, this Court called for the relevant record
from the Registry of the NCLAT. Pursuant thereto, Scrutiny Report
dated 27.05.2025 pertaining to the subject appeal was forwarded by
the NCLAT. Therein, the Registry noted that the period of limitation
for filing the appeal, being 30 days, expired on 13.09.2024 and the
condonable delay thereafter, being 15 days, was till 28.09.2024. The
appeal was e-filed by respondent No. 1 on the very last day, that is,
28.09.2024. The defects in the appeal were intimated by the Registry
on 04.10.2024. The appeal was refiled only on 10.03.2025, though
the time stipulated under Rule 26(2) of the National Company Law
Appellate Tribunal Rules, 20162, for curing of defects is only 07 days.
However, the Registry of the NCLAT found that defects galore still
remained uncured. The defects that were noticed by the Registry
even after the refiling of the appeal were as under: -
‘1. Appeal should be in chronological order: Memos of
parties, Synopsis, List of dates & Events, Memorandum
of Appeal, Certified copies of the Impugned order
2 For brevity, ‘NCLAT Rules’
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 581
Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M Lalitha and Another
2. IA to be filed after Dates and events & Rule provision
not mentioned
3. Appellant should be signed in IA Papers
4. IA not reflect in the e portal
5. Vakalath to be duly stamped
6. Appeal not in the format of NCLAT – I
7. Certified copy of the impugned order to be filed or IA
with requisite court fee to be filed
8. IA with requisite court fee to be filed for delay in refiling
for the period
04.10.2024 to 10.03.2025
9. Payment details to be filed after proof of service
10. In Memo of parties counsel sign not furnished’
6. In effect, even after the refiling of the appeal on 10.03.2025, one of
the glaring defects that still remained was that a certified copy of the
order dated 14.08.2024, sought to be impugned in the appeal, was
not filed. No doubt, delay in refiling of a proceeding would, ordinarily,
not be tested by the same strict standards that would be applied to
delay in the filing of such proceeding but we find that, in the case
on hand, the appeal which was refiled by respondent No. 1 was
defective beyond redemption. Defect No. 07, noted supra, indicates
that the appeal was refiled without a certified copy of the order dated
14.08.2024 passed by the NCLT.
7. Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules pertains to presentation of appeals. Rule
22(2) categorically states that every appeal shall be accompanied by
a certified copy of the impugned order. In this regard, the 3-Judge
Bench decision of this Court in V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and
Power Limited and others3 assumes significance. Therein, this
Court noted that the parties could not automatically dispense with
their obligation to apply for and obtain a certified copy for filing an
appeal under Rule 22. It was further noted that a person wishing to
file an appeal is expected to file an application for the certified copy
3 (2022) 2 SCC 244
582 [2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
before the expiry of the limitation period, upon which ‘the requisite
time’ for obtaining the certified copy is liable to be excluded while
computing limitation. Further, it was observed that though Rule 14 of
the NCLAT Rules enabled parties being exempted from compliance
with the requirement of the rules and though waiver on the filing of
an appeal with a certified copy is often granted, it does not confer
an automatic right on the applicant to dispense with compliance
and render Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules nugatory. This Court,
therefore, held that the act of filing an application for a certified copy
is not just a technical requirement for computation of limitation but
an indication of the diligence of the party in pursuing the litigation
in a timely fashion.
8. In the case on hand, as stated earlier, a certified copy of the NCLT’s
order dated 14.08.2024, that was sought to be appealed against by
respondent No. 1, was not filed along with the refiled appeal but long
thereafter. Perusal of the photocopy of the said certified copy reflects
that respondent No. 1 applied for the same only on 21.04.2025 and
though the certified copy was prepared on 24.04.2025, it was not
collected till 12.06.2025. Therefore, on 10.03.2025, when it was
refiled, the appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the
order dated 14.08.2024.
9. Given the strict timelines provided in the Code, which were held
to be of essence by this Court (See Ebix Singapore Private
Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions
Limited and another4), we may note that respondent No. 1 chose
to e-file an appeal against the order dated 14.08.2024 on the very
last day available to her, in terms of the limitation prescribed under
the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Code. However, the filing of
such appeal, without even applying for a certified copy of the order
dated 14.08.2024, practically meant that there was no filing of an
appeal in the eyes of law. As pointed out by this Court, a diligent
litigant is expected to apply for a certified copy of the order sought
to be appealed against before the period of limitation runs out
and, by doing so, such litigant would be entitled to seek exclusion
of the time taken to procure the certified copy for the purpose of
limitation.
4 (2022) 2 SCC 401
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 583
Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M Lalitha and Another
10. 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. Any such application could
have been considered by the NCLAT under Rules 14 and 15 of the
NCLAT Rules to enable the filing of the certified copy by respondent
No.1 within such further time as is stipulated by the NCLAT. 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.
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.
11. On the above analysis, we hold that the filing/refiling of the appeal
by respondent No. 1 was incurably tainted and the same ought to
have been rejected at the threshold. The order dated 10.11.2025
passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai,
in IA Nos. 1164 and 1165 in Company Appeal No. (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.
252 of 2025 is, accordingly, set aside.
The appeals are allowed, in the aforestated terms.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Company Appeal e-filed with delay"Sign in to search