Case at a Glance
A homebuyers’ association’s resolution plan for a Kerala builder had been approved by the NCLT, Kochi. The mother of a suspended director of the builder, claiming to be a financial creditor, filed an appeal on the last possible day without a certified copy of the order, then took months to refile. The NCLAT, Chennai condoned a 150-day refiling delay on a Rs. 50,000 deposit. The Supreme Court set that order aside, holding that the appeal “was incurably tainted and the same ought to have been rejected at the threshold.”
In the corporate insolvency of Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., the NCLT, Kochi Bench approved on 14 August 2024 the resolution plan submitted by the Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association. Respondent No. 1, M. Lalitha — the mother of a suspended director of the corporate debtor, who claimed to be a financial creditor — e-filed an appeal before the NCLAT, Chennai on 28 September 2024. The 30-day limitation had expired on 13 September 2024, and the appeal was filed on the last day of the further 15-day condonable period.
The NCLAT Registry communicated defects on 4 October 2024, but the appeal was refiled only on 10 March 2025, although Rule 26(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 allows seven days to cure defects. Even then it lacked a certified copy of the impugned order; Lalitha first applied for one on 21 April 2025, and it was prepared on 24 April 2025 but not collected until 12 June 2025. On 10 November 2025 the NCLAT allowed her applications condoning a 15-day delay in filing and a 150-day delay in refiling, subject to a deposit of Rs. 50,000 with the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. The homebuyers’ association appealed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the NCLAT condone delays and entertain an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC that was filed and refiled without a certified copy of the impugned order and without any application for one within limitation?
Why the Appeal Was Not Merely ‘Defective’ but Void at the Threshold
Relying on the three-Judge Bench decision in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited, (2021) 10 SC CK 0054, (2022) 2 SCC 244, the Court held that the obligation under Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules to file a certified copy cannot be dispensed with automatically, and that “the act of filing an application for a certified copy is not just a technical requirement for computation of limitation.” It stressed that “a diligent litigant is expected to apply for a certified copy of the order sought to be appealed against.” Here, no application was made until long after the limitation period, and the certified copy was not collected for weeks even after it was ready.
The Court also invoked Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited, (2021) 09 SC CK 0020, (2022) 2 SCC 401, for the principle that the strict timelines under the Code are of the essence. It concluded that “the appeal, as filed and refiled, was not a merely defective appeal, wherein the defects could be cured.” The NCLAT should have examined whether the appeal was validly instituted under the Code and the Rules before condoning delays; instead it condoned a 150-day refiling delay despite a seven-day rule.
What the Court Actually Held
- The filing and refiling of the appeal by Respondent No. 1 “was incurably tainted and the same ought to have been rejected at the threshold.”
- An appeal under Section 61 of the IBC filed without a certified copy, and without applying for one in time, is not a curable defect.
- The NCLAT order dated 10 November 2025 condoning the filing and refiling delays was set aside.
- The appeals of the homebuyers’ association were allowed; parties to bear their own costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects approved resolution plans — including homebuyer-led plans — from belated appeals that reopen settled insolvencies.
- It reaffirms V. Nagarajan: applying for a certified copy is a substantive duty, not a formality.
- It signals that the NCLAT cannot use cost-conditions to condone delays in appeals that were never validly instituted.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Homebuyers
- Once a resolution plan is approved, challenges must strictly follow the IBC’s limitation scheme; belated appeals can be resisted at the threshold.
- Allottee associations should monitor NCLAT filings and object early to defective or delayed appeals.
For Counsel
- Apply for the certified copy immediately after the NCLT order and file it with the appeal under Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules.
- Cure defects within seven days under Rule 26(2); long refiling delays may be fatal regardless of costs offered.
- Before seeking condonation, ensure the appeal was validly instituted — the Supreme Court will look at that first.
Key Takeaways
- No certified copy and no timely application for one: the IBC appeal fails at the threshold.
- Condonation of delay cannot cure an incurably tainted appeal.
- IBC timelines are of the essence (Ebix Singapore).
- The homebuyers’ resolution plan approval stands protected from the belated challenge.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a certified copy mandatory for an NCLAT appeal?
Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules requires it, and following V. Nagarajan, the Supreme Court held the obligation cannot be dispensed with automatically; applying for it is a substantive duty.
What is the limitation for an appeal under Section 61 IBC?
30 days, with up to 15 more days condonable for sufficient cause under the proviso to Section 61(2); the appeal here was filed on the last day of that period.
Can NCLAT condone a long delay in refiling on payment of costs?
Not where the appeal itself was incurably tainted; the Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT’s condonation of a 150-day refiling delay on a Rs. 50,000 deposit.
Conclusion
Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M. Lalitha, (2026) 05 SC CK 0436 enforces the discipline of the IBC’s appellate timelines in favour of the homebuyers whose plan rescued the project. A litigant who files at the last minute, does not apply for a certified copy and refiles months later cannot expect the NCLAT to look past it.
Practical takeaway: In NCLAT appeals, apply for the certified copy on day one and cure defects within seven days — otherwise the appeal may be held incurably tainted.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com