Strict 30‑day Limit Under IBC Applies; 15‑day Extension Must Be Strictly Justified

A three‑judge bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih heard appeals by a shareholder and suspended managing director of Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Ltd. challenging the NCLAT’s dismissal of applications for condonation of delay under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The appellant sought to challenge NCLT orders approving a resolution plan and to have his competing plan placed before the Committee of Creditors, but the NCLAT had dismissed the appeals as time‑barred.

The Court affirmed the NCLAT’s conclusion that the appeals were barred by limitation and upheld the statutory scheme in Section 61(2) IBC that prescribed a 30‑day period for appeals with a discretionary extension of up to 15 days only upon satisfaction of “sufficient cause.” The bench held that the limitation period commenced from the date of pronouncement of the NCLT order (or the date of upload where applicable) and that failure to apply for a certified copy during the limitation period did not postpone the running of time. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It can, thus, be concluded that the litigant has to file its appeal under Section 61(2) within 30 days which can be extended up to a period of 15 days, and no more, upon showing sufficient cause. A slate of interpretation of procedural rules cannot be used to defeat the substantive objective of legislation which is prescribed in a time frame. As a result, thereof, the period of limitation for filing the appeal having been laid down and proviso thereto limiting the exercise up to a distance for condoning the delay mandatorily has to be adhered to." The Court also reiterated that "the provisions have to be strictly followed" and that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules required a certified copy to be annexed with the appeal, which could not be automatically dispensed with as a matter of course.

Background The dispute arose from two appeals filed by A. Rajendra against NCLT orders dated 20 July 2023 — one order had rejected the appellant’s application under Section 60(5) read with Section 35(1)(n) IBC seeking placement of his resolution plans before the CoC, and another had approved a rival resolution plan under Section 30 and 31 read with Regulation 39(4) of the IBBI Regulations. The appeals reached NCLAT without timely applications for condonation of delay; in one appeal a free certified copy of the NCLT order became available on 1 August 2023 and in the other no certified copy had been applied for. The respondents objected that the appeals were filed after expiry of the 30‑day period under Section 61(2).

The appellant argued that limitation should run from the date of knowledge or receipt of the certified copy and relied on Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act and the proviso to Section 61(2) IBC to seek condonation; he also relied on Sesh Nath Singh. The respondents contended that the appellant had suppressed facts, had not applied for certified copies, and therefore could not claim any exclusion of time.

The Supreme Court reviewed settled precedents including V. Nagarajan, Cethar Ltd., National Spot Exchange and Sanjay Pandurang Kalate. It held that the IBC’s non‑obstante clause and time‑bound scheme required strict construction: limitation ran from pronouncement (or upload) and the NCLAT’s limited discretion to allow an additional 15 days required satisfaction of sufficient cause. The Court emphasised that Rule 22(2) NCLAT Rules mandated annexure of the certified copy and that delay could not be excused where no steps were taken to obtain the certified copy during the limitation period. Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found no sufficient cause, agreed with the NCLAT’s finding of suppression and mis‑statement in pleadings, and dismissed the appeals. The Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the impugned NCLAT order dated 18.01.2024, ordered no costs, and disposed of pending applications.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 447; Civil Appeal Nos. 11070–11071 of 2024 (@ Diary No. 10029 of 2024) Case Title: A Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Advocates not indicated in the reported judgment For the Respondent(s): Advocates not indicated in the reported judgment