IBC Appeals Filed Without Certified Copies and Refiled Beyond Statutory Timelines Are Not Valid Appeals in the Eyes of Law

Case Name: Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M. Lalitha and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC 479

Date of Judgment/Order: 12 May 2026

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Held: The Supreme Court held that an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be treated as validly instituted unless it satisfies the mandatory procedural requirements prescribed under the Code and the NCLAT Rules, including filing of a certified copy of the impugned order under Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. The Court held that an appeal filed without even applying for a certified copy within the limitation period, and refiled after enormous delay without curing foundational defects, is not merely a defective appeal but a wholly incompetent proceeding incapable of being entertained in law. The Court further reiterated that the strict timelines under the IBC are of fundamental importance and cannot be diluted through procedural indulgence.

Summary: The dispute arose from proceedings concerning approval of a resolution plan submitted by Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association in the corporate insolvency resolution process of Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No. 1, claiming to be both a financial creditor and the mother of a suspended director of the corporate debtor, sought to challenge the NCLT’s order approving the resolution plan by filing an appeal before the NCLAT. The appeal was e-filed on the very last condonable day under Section 61(2) of the IBC, accompanied by applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and refiling. Though defects were pointed out by the NCLAT Registry on 04 October 2024, the appeal was refiled only on 10 March 2025 and still suffered from several defects, including the absence of a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order. The Supreme Court examined Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules and the precedents in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. and Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd. v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Ltd. The Court found that the respondent had not even applied for a certified copy until 21 April 2025, long after refiling the appeal, nor sought exemption from filing such certified copy. The Court held that this demonstrated complete lack of diligence and rendered the appeal incurably defective and legally non est.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the order dated 10 November 2025 passed by the NCLAT, Chennai, condoning delay in filing and refiling Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 252 of 2025. The Court held that the appeal instituted by Respondent No. 1 before the NCLAT was fundamentally incompetent and liable to be rejected at the threshold because it was filed and refiled without compliance with the mandatory requirement of filing a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order. The Court further held that the NCLAT had failed to examine whether the appeal itself was legally maintainable before exercising discretion to condone delay. Accordingly, the impugned order condoning delay stood quashed and the proceedings before the NCLAT were terminated. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.