The Supreme Court clarified the computation of limitation period for appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, holding that time runs from the date of the NCLAT order, not from receipt of a certified copy, and that delay in obtaining copy cannot be excluded if the application for copy is made after the limitation period has commenced.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from excise recovery proceedings against Samyu Glass Private Limited, a glass manufacturing company registered as an Export Oriented Unit. Between 2013 and 2017, the Central Excise and Service Tax Department initiated multiple excise recovery proceedings. Around November/December 2016, the company ceased manufacturing activity. The company challenged the demands before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India), a financial creditor, filed a petition under Section 7 of the IBC to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Adjudicating Authority admitted the petition and appointed Respondent No.1 as the Resolution Professional.
Key Facts
- On 04.11.2019, the Department convened a Joint Pricing Committee meeting to fix the reserve price for auctioning attached machinery.
- On 27.11.2019, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax submitted a proof of claim (Form F) for Rs. 22,60,32,948/- (Rupees Twenty Two Crores Sixty Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Eight).
- The Resolution Professional, under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, approached the Appellant to settle Central Excise arrears and presented a settlement scheme for Rs. 4,32,80,741/- (Rupees Four Crores Thirty-Two Lakhs Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty-One).
- On 13.08.2021, the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad (NCLT) approved the Resolution Plan, under which a sum of Rs. 1,34,657/- (One Lakh Thirty-Four Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty-Seven) was approved towards excise arrears payable to the Appellant.
- The Appellants, dissatisfied with the Resolution Plan, filed Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 346/2021 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (NCLAT).
- NCLAT, through its impugned Order dated 02.08.2023, confirmed the Resolution Plan approved by NCLT Hyderabad.
- Consequently, on 21.11.2023, the Revenue (Appellant) filed the present Civil Appeal under Section 62 of the IBC challenging the NCLAT order.
Procedural History
- 02.08.2023: NCLAT pronounced the impugned Order confirming the Resolution Plan.
- 06.09.2023: Appellant applied for a certified copy of the NCLAT order.
- 11.10.2023: Appellant received the certified copy of the NCLAT order.
- 21.11.2023: Civil Appeal filed under Section 62 of the IBC.
- 14.10.2026: Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered.
Relief Sought
The Appellant sought to set aside the NCLAT order dated 02.08.2023 on the ground that the appeal was within limitation, contending that the limitation period commenced from receipt of the certified copy on 11.10.2023 and that the appeal filed on 21.11.2023 was within the permissible period.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 62(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 commences from the date of the NCLAT order or from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that order, and whether the time taken to obtain such copy can be excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 when the application for copy is filed after the limitation period has already commenced.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The Appellant contended that Section 62(1) expressly provides for filing an appeal "within forty-five days from the date of receipt of such order," and that the expression "receipt of the order" refers to receipt of a certified copy. Reliance was placed on Sagufa Ahmed and Others v. Upper Assam Plywood Products Private Limited and Others, where this Court held that limitation under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 ran from receipt of judgment because a statutory right to a free certified copy existed. The Appellant argued that Section 238-A of the IBC makes the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable "as far as may be," and that the time requisite for obtaining a copy should be excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. It was further submitted that the Appellant acted with due diligence by applying for a copy on 06.09.2023 and receiving it on 11.10.2023, and that the appeal filed on 21.11.2023 was well within the limitation period reckoned from 11.10.2023.
For the Respondent
The Respondent maintained that the limitation period under Section 62 of the IBC commences from the date the order is made available, i.e., the date of pronouncement by NCLAT, and that the phrase "date of receipt of such order" in Section 62(1) cannot be interpreted as the date a party chooses to collect a certified copy. Reliance was placed on V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Others and CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure and Developers Private Limited, which emphasized that the IBC is a complete, self-contained code with strict timelines. The Respondent argued that Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 excludes only the "time requisite" for obtaining a copy, i.e., the period between filing the application and the date the copy is ready, and that any period of inaction before filing the application cannot be excluded. Since the Appellant applied for a copy on 06.09.2023, which was the 35th day after the NCLAT order (02.08.2023), the 35 days of delay counted against the initial 45-day window, leaving only 10 days to file after receipt, plus a further 15 discretionary days under Section 62(2). The appeal filed on 21.11.2023 was thus 16 days beyond the absolute outer limit of 60 days.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between Section 62 of the IBC and Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It noted that Section 62(1) provides a limitation period of forty-five days "from the date of receipt of such order," while Section 62(2) allows a condonable period of up to fifteen days upon showing sufficient cause, creating an absolute outer ceiling of sixty days. The Court held that the phrase "date of receipt of such order" must be read as the date the order is made available, i.e., the date of pronouncement, to avoid rendering Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act redundant and to prevent the limitation period from becoming fluctuating and indefinite.
"The limitation period commences on the date the NCLAT pronounces the Order for an Appeal to this Court under Section 62 of the IBC."
The Court further explained that under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, only the "time requisite" for obtaining a copy - the period between filing the application and the date the certified copy is ready - is excluded. Any period of inaction before filing the application must be deducted from the statutory limitation period. Applying this principle, the Court found that the Appellant applied for a certified copy on 06.09.2023, which was the 35th day after the NCLAT order (02.08.2023). Consequently, those 35 days of inaction counted directly against the initial 45-day window, leaving only 10 days to file after receipt of the copy (by 21.10.2023) and a further 15 discretionary days (by 05.11.2023). The Appellant, however, filed the appeal on 21.11.2023, consuming another 41 days after receipt, resulting in a total of 76 days (35 + 41). This exceeded the absolute statutory ceiling of 60 days by 16 days.
The Court relied on the binding precedents of Sagufa Ahmed, V. Nagarajan, and CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary to reiterate that the IBC’s limitation scheme is strict and that procedural rules cannot be used to protract litigation indefinitely. It emphasized that the right to appeal is extinguished once the sixty-day window under the IBC closes, and that the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 cannot override the IBC’s express provisions.
The Verdict
The Respondent succeeded; the Civil Appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. The Court held that the limitation period commenced on 02.08.2023, the initial forty-five-day period expired on 16.09.2023, the condonable period of fifteen days expired on 01.10.2023, and the absolute outer limit of sixty days expired on 05.11.2023. The appeal filed on 21.11.2023 was therefore 16 days beyond the outer limit. No order as to costs was passed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Limitation Starts from Pronouncement, Not Receipt
Practitioners must treat the date of pronouncement of the NCLAT order as the starting point for limitation under Section 62 IBC. Relying on receipt of a certified copy to extend time is no longer permissible; the clock begins when the order is made available in open court.
Time to Obtain Copy Not Excludable if Delayed
- The period taken to obtain a certified copy is excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act only if the application for copy is filed within the initial limitation period.
- Any delay in applying for the copy counts against the limitation period and cannot be set off later.
- Applicants should file for a certified copy promptly, ideally within the first few days after pronouncement, to preserve the benefit of exclusion.
Strict Adherence to IBC Timelines Required
- The IBC’s limitation regime is absolute: the outer ceiling of sixty days (forty-five days plus fifteen days condonation) cannot be extended by procedural maneuvers.
- Once this window closes, the right to appeal is permanently extinguished, and neither the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 nor any equitable consideration can revive it.
- Litigants must monitor timelines closely and act with diligence to avoid losing the right of appeal.
