Supreme Court of India
STATE BANK OF INDIAversusINDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 774
- Decided
- 27 September 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
Both free and fee‑based certified copies under Rule 50 are treated as certified copies for the purpose of Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, and the three‑day delay is within the 15‑day condonable period and must be condoned.
Summary
State Bank of India (SBI) appealed an order of the NCLT rejecting its IBC petition against India Power Corporation Limited. The appeal was filed three days after the statutory 30‑day period, and SBI sought condonation of delay, relying on a free certified copy of the NCLT order sent under Rule 50. A split decision arose in the NCLAT: the Judicial Member held that only a copy obtained by application could satisfy Rule 22(2), while the Technical Member treated the free copy as a certified copy. The Supreme Court examined the interplay of Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules and Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, and affirmed that both free and fee‑based copies are “certified copies” for the purpose of filing an appeal. It further held that the three‑day delay fell within the 15‑day condonable period under Section 61(2) of the IBC and that sufficient cause was shown. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered the delay to be condoned.
Issues considered
- Whether a free certified copy of an NCLT order issued under Rule 50 qualifies as the "certified copy" required by Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules for filing an appeal.
- Whether the three‑day delay in filing the appeal is condonable under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, given the receipt of the free certified copy.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Interpretation of Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, 2016Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy CodeCondonation of delayCertified copy of orderFree of cost copyPayment of costsBar of limitation
Judgment
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 384 : 2024 INSC 774
State Bank of India
v.
India Power Corporation Limited
(Civil Appeal No. 10424 of 2024)
27 September 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI and Manoj Misra, J.]
Issue for Consideration
The issue which arises for consideration is the interpretation
of Rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016
(NCLT Rules) and Rule 22 of the National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal Rules, 2016 (NCLAT Rules).
Headnotes†
National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Rule 50 –
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 –
Rule 22 – Interpretation of:
Held: Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules requires that every appeal
shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned
order – Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules prescribes that the Registry
shall send a certified copy of the final order free of cost and
certified copies may be made available on payment of costs in
terms of the Schedule of Fees in all other cases – Both the
certified copy which is made available free of cost as well as the
certified copy which is made available on the payment of costs,
are treated as certified copies for the purpose of Rule 50 – A
litigant who does not apply for a certified copy cannot then fall
back and claim that he was awaiting the grant of a free copy to
obviate the bar of limitation. [Para 19]
National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Rule 50 –
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 –
Rule 22 – Before NCLAT, appellant filed an application for
condonation of delay on the ground that the appeal was lodged
with delay of 3 days beyond the 30 day period prescribed – A
divergence arose between the two members of the NCLAT –
The third member agreed with the judicial member in
dismissing the application for condonation of delay:
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 385
State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Limited
Held: The Judicial Member, NCLAT held that the certified copy
which was filed by the appellant was a “free of cost” copy and hence
in the absence of an application for the grant of a certified copy,
the delay of three days could not be condoned – The Technical
Member, on the other hand, held that no distinction could be made
between certified copies obtained through the payment of fee and
a free copy and sufficient cause was shown for condoning the
delay of three days – The third member agreed with the judicial
member – In the instant case, the free copy was made available
on 14.11.2023 after the decision of the NCLT was pronounced
on 30.10.2023 – The appeal was lodged on 02.12.2023 – The
appeal was lodged with a delay of only three days beyond the
statutory period of 30 days and, therefore, fell within the condonable
period of 15 days – Sufficient cause was shown for condoning the
delay of three days – A Schedule of Fees is prescribed by the
NCLT Rules – Entry 31 of the Schedule stipulates that the fee
for obtaining true certified copies of final orders passed to parties
other than the concerned parties under Rule 50 shall be Rupees
five per page – The stipulation of Rupees five per page in Entry 31
excludes “the concerned parties under Rule 50” – The provisions
of Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules place both the free certified copy
as well as the certified copy which is applied for on payment of
fees on the same footing – The appeal in the present case was
filed within the condonable period of 15 days, which should have
been condoned – Accordingly, the delay of three days in filing the
appeal shall stand condoned. [Paras 5, 20, 21, 22, 23]
Case Law Cited
V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited & Ors. [2021] 14
SCR 736 : (2022) 2 SCC 244 – relied on.
List of Acts
National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016; National Company
Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016; Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016.
List of Keywords
Interpretation of Rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal
Rules, 2016; Rule 22 of the National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal Rules, 2016; Section 61(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016; Condonation of delay; Certified copy of order; Free
of costs; Payment of costs; Bar of limitation.
386 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10424 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2023 of the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench in I.A. No. 158 of
2024 in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(INS) No. 53 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Tushar Mehta, SG, Madhav Kanoria, Ms. Surabhi Khattar, Ms. Neha
Shivhare, Sriharsh Raj, M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Anirban Bhattacharya, Rajeev
Chowdhary, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Pranjit Bhattacharya, Advs. for the
Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1. On a difference between two members of the National Company
Law Appellate Tribunal,1 reflected in a split verdict on 1 May 2024,
the third Member, by a judgment dated 9 July 2024, agreed with the
Judicial Member in dismissing the application for condonation of delay.
2. The facts, insofar as they are relevant for the disposal of the Appeal,
fall in a narrow compass.
3. The appellant, State Bank of India, instituted an application under
Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 20162 against the
respondent. The National Company Law Tribunal3 at Hyderabad
rejected the petition on the ground of maintainability by an order
dated 30 October 2023.
4. The appeal before the NCLAT, Chennai was filed on 2 December
2023. The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay on
the ground that the appeal had been lodged with a delay of 3 days
beyond the 30 day period prescribed in Section 61(2).
1 “NCLAT”
2 “IBC”
3 “NCLT”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 387
State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Limited
5. A divergence arose between the two members of the NCLAT on 1
May 2024. The Judicial Member held that the certified copy which
was filed by the appellant was a “free of cost” copy and hence in the
absence of an application for the grant of a certified copy, the delay
of three days could not be condoned. The Technical Member, on the
other hand, held that no distinction could be made between certified
copies obtained through the payment of fee and a free copy and
sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay of three days.
6. The divergence was, thereafter, referred to a third Member of the
NCLAT who has ruled that the free copy provided under Rule 50 of
the National Company Law Tribunal Rules 20164 cannot be treated
as a certified copy which is referred to in Rule 22(2) of the National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules 2016.5
7. The appeal has been consequently dismissed on delay on 9 July 2024.
8. The issue which arises for consideration turns on the interpretation
of Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules and Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules.
9. An appeal to the appellate authority is governed by the provisions
of Section 61(2) of the IBC which provides as follows :
“61.(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed
within thirty days before the National Company Law
Appellate Tribunal:
Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the
said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was
sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period
shall not exceed fifteen days.”
10. Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules provides as follows :
“50. Registry to send certified copy.—The Registry shall
send a certified copy of final order passed to the parties
concerned free of cost and the certified copies may be
made available with cost as per Schedule of fees, in all
other cases.”
4 “The NCLT Rules”
5 “The NCLAT Rules”
388 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
11. Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules is in the following terms :
“22. Presentation of appeal.—(1) Every appeal shall be
presented in Form NCLAT-1 in triplicate by the appellant
or petitioner or applicant or respondent, as the case may
be, in person or by his duly authorised representative
duly appointed in this behalf in the prescribed form with
stipulated fee at the filing counter and non-compliance of
this may constitute a valid ground to refuse to entertain
the same.
(2) Every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy
of the impugned order.
(3) All documents filed in the Appellate Tribunal shall be
accompanied by an index in triplicate containing their
details and the amount of fee paid thereon.
(4) Sufficient number of copies of the appeal or petition or
application shall also be filed for service on the opposite
party as prescribed.
(5) In the pending matters, all other applications shall be
presented after serving copies thereof in advance on the
opposite side or his advocate or authorised representative.
(6) The processing fee prescribed by the rules, with required
number of envelopes of sufficient size and notice forms
as prescribed shall be filled along with memorandum of
appeal.”
12. Rule 22(1) provides for
(i) the presentation of an appeal in Form NCLAT-1;
(ii) the person by whom the appeal may be filed; and
(iii) the submission of the stipulated fee. Rule 22(2) stipulates that
“every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the
impugned order”.
13. Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules governs the furnishing of certified copies.
Rule 50 indicates that the Registry shall send a certified copy of the
final order which has been passed to the parties concerned free of
cost. It also indicates that certified copies may be made available
against the payment of costs in terms of the Schedule of Fees, in
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 389
State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Limited
other cases. Rule 50 provides for a certified copy being provided free
of cost and that a certified copy may be made available against the
payment of costs, as indicated in the Schedule of Fees. The important
point to note is that both the certified copy which is provided free of
cost as well as the certified copy which is made on an application in
that behalf are treated as certified copies for the purposes of Rule 50
14. Ms Surbhi Khattar, counsel has appeared on behalf of the appellant.
The Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta, has also addressed the
Court.
15. Ms Khattar has submitted that Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules places
both the certified copy which is provided free of cost as well as the
certified copy which is made available against the payment of costs
as indicated in the Schedule of Fees on the same footing. It has
been urged that as a matter of fact, the free certified copy was made
available on 14 November 2023 and the appeal which was filed on
2 December 2023 was well within the condonable period of 15 days
beyond the period of 30 days which is stipulated in Section 61(2).
16. On the other hand, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents placed reliance on the
decision of the three Judge Bench in V Nagarajan Vs SKS Ispat
and Power Limited & Ors6 (paragraphs 23 and 29).
17. In order to consider the submissions which has been urged on behalf
of the respondent, it would be necessary to extract paragraphs 23
and 29 of the above decision which read as follows :
“23. Therefore in a field which is not covered by a special
law which invests NCLT with jurisdiction, the general
principle for the computation of limitation for filing an
appeal against an order of NCLT is governed by the
statutory mandate of Section 420(3) of the Companies
Act read with Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, which enables
a party to compute limitation from the date of receipt of
the statutorily mandated free certified copy, without having
to file its own application. However, the decision of this
Court in Sagufa Ahmed [Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam
Plywood Products (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 317 : (2021) 2
6 [2021] 14 SCR 736 : (2022) 2 SCC 244
390 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
SCC (Civ) 178] clarifies that the statutory mandate of a
free copy is not to enable litigants to take two bites at the
apple where they could compute limitation from either when
the certified copy is received on the litigant’s application
or received as a free copy from the Registry—whichever
is later.
XXX XXX XXX
29. On the question of a certified copy for filing an appeal
against an order passed by NCLT under IBC, Rule 22(2)
of the NCLAT Rules mandates that an appeal has to be
filed with a certified copy of the “impugned order”:
“22. Presentation of appeal.— (1) Every appeal shall
be presented in Form Nclat-1 in triplicate by the
appellant or petitioner or applicant or respondent, as
the case may be, in person or by his duly authorised
representative duly appointed in this behalf in the
prescribed form with stipulated fee at the filing counter
and non-compliance of this may constitute a valid
ground to refuse to entertain the same.
(2) Every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified
copy of the impugned order.”
(emphasis supplied)
Therefore, it cannot be said that the parties can
automatically dispense with their obligation to apply for
and obtain a certified copy for filing an appeal. Any delay
in receipt of a certified copy, once an application has
been filed, has been envisaged by the legislature and
duly excluded to not cause any prejudice to a litigant’s
right to appeal.”
18. In V Nagarajan, the order of the NCLT was dated 31 December 2019
and was uploaded on the website on 12 March 2020. There was a
correction in the name of the Judicial Member who had passed the
order on 20 March 2020. The appellant before this Court claimed
to have awaited the issue of a free copy and allegedly sought a
free copy on 23 March 2020 under the provisions Section 420(3)
of the Companies Act 2013 read with Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 391
State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Limited
He claimed that the free copy had not been made available to him
until that date and that in the meantime, the COVID-19 pandemic
had intervened. The NCLAT, by its order dated 13 July, 2020, relied
on Section 61(2) and came to the conclusion that the appeal was
barred by limitation. It is in this context that this Court in paragraph
23 of its decision (extracted above) observed that the mandate of
a free copy was not to enable litigants to take “two bites at the
apple where they could compute limitation from either when the
certified copy is received on the litigant’s application or received
as a free copy from the Registry—whichever is later”. This Court,
therefore, held that parties could not automatically dispense with
their obligation to apply for and obtain a certified copy for filing an
appeal.
19. Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules requires that every appeal shall be
accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. Rule 50 of
the NCLT Rules prescribes that the Registry shall send a certified
copy of the final order free of cost and certified copies may be made
available on payment of costs in terms of the Schedule of Fees in
all other cases. Both the certified copy which is made available free
of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on the
payment of costs, are treated as certified copies for the purpose of
Rule 50. A litigant who does not apply for a certified copy cannot then
fall back and claim that he was awaiting the grant of a free copy to
obviate the bar of limitation. This was the position in the decision of
this Court in V Nagarajan.
20. The facts of the present case are completely distinguishable. The free
copy was made available on 14 November 2023 after the decision
of the NCLT was pronounced on 30 October 2023. The appeal was
lodged on 2 December 2023. The appeal was lodged with a delay of
only three days beyond the statutory period of 30 days and, therefore,
fell within the condonable period of 15 days. Sufficient cause was
shown for condoning the delay of three days.
21. A Schedule of Fees is prescribed by the NCLT Rules. Entry 31 of
the Schedule stipulates that the fee for obtaining true certified copies
of final orders passed to parties other than the concerned parties
under Rule 50 shall be Rupees five per page. The stipulation of
Rupees five per page in Entry 31 excludes “the concerned parties
under Rule 50”.
392 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
22. The provisions of Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules place both the free
certified copy as well as the certified copy which is applied for on
payment of fees on the same footing. The appeal in the present case
was filed within the condonable period of 15 days, which should
have been condoned.
23. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment
and order of the NCLAT dated 7 May 2024. The delay of three days
in filing the appeal shall stand condoned. The appeal shall stand
restored to the file of the NCLAT.
24. The Court would wish to record its appreciation of the meticulous
manner in which Ms Surbhi Khattar, appearing for the appellant had
prepared the case and made submissions.
25. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Result of the Case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Interpretation of Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, 2016"Sign in to search