LawcurbLawcurbTMLegal Intelligence. Simplified.

Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Associationv.M Lalitha & Another

Citation:
2026 INSC 479
Date:
12 May 2026
Reading time:
10 min read

Legal Analysis: Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association vs. M Lalitha & Another

Citation: 2026 INSC 479
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (Division Bench)
Date of Decision: May 12, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai condoning delay in filing and refiling of an appeal.


Synopsis of the Judgment

The respondent (M Lalitha) filed an appeal before the NCLAT under Section 61 of the IBC challenging the approval of a resolution plan. She e‑filed the appeal on the last day of the condonable limitation period (28.09.2024) but without a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order. Defects were notified; she refiled the appeal after 150 days (on 10.03.2025), still without a certified copy. The NCLAT condoned both the delay in filing (15 days) and the delay in refiling (150 days). The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT’s order, holding that the appeal was “incurably tainted” because a certified copy of the impugned order is mandatory under Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, and the appellant never applied for it until long after the refiling. The Court reiterated that a diligent litigant must apply for a certified copy before the limitation period expires to claim exclusion of time. The appeals were allowed, and the NCLAT’s condonation order was set aside.


1. Basic Information of the Judgment

  • Case Title: Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association vs. M Lalitha & Another

  • Civil Appeal Nos.: 14439‑14440 of 2025

  • Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (Division Bench)

  • Date of Decision: May 12, 2026

  • Citation: 2026 INSC 479

  • Appeal From: Order dated 10.11.2025 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai in IA Nos. 1164 and 1165 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 252 of 2025


2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC): Section 61 (appeals to NCLAT), Section 61(2) (limitation period – 30 days, condonable up to 15 days), Section 62 (appeal to Supreme Court).

  • National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016: Rule 22(2) (every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order), Rule 14 (power to exempt from compliance with rules), Rule 15 (power to dispense with requirements), Rule 26(2) (time for curing defects – 7 days).

Key Precedents Cited

  1. V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and others (2021) – A three‑Judge Bench held that filing an application for a certified copy is not a technical requirement but an indication of diligence; parties cannot automatically dispense with the obligation to obtain a certified copy; the time taken to obtain a certified copy is excluded only if the application was made before the expiry of limitation.

  2. Ebix Singapore Private Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and another (2020) – The timelines provided in the IBC are of essence; strict compliance is required.

What the Judgment is About

The judgment deals with the mandatory requirement of filing a certified copy of the impugned order along with an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC before the NCLAT. It clarifies that an appeal filed without a certified copy, even after the expiry of the limitation period (including the condonable period), is not a “merely defective” appeal but a “wholly incompetent” appeal that cannot be cured by condonation of delay alone. The NCLAT’s power to condone delay does not extend to waiving the essential requirement of filing a certified copy. The Court also emphasises that a litigant who fails to even apply for a certified copy before the limitation expires cannot claim the benefit of exclusion of time.


3. Relevant Facts

  • NCLT order (14.08.2024): NCLT, Kochi Bench approved the resolution plan submitted by the appellant (Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association).

  • Appeal before NCLAT: Respondent No. 1 (M Lalitha), mother of a suspended director of the corporate debtor, claimed to be a financial creditor and filed an appeal challenging the NCLT order.

  • Timeline:
    Limitation period for appeal under Section 61 IBC: 30 days from the impugned order (expiring on 13.09.2024). Condonable delay up to 15 days thereafter (expiring on 28.09.2024).
    28.09.2024: Respondent e‑filed the appeal on the last day of the condonable period. No certified copy of the NCLT order was filed.
    04.10.2024: NCLAT Registry notified defects.
    10.03.2025: Appeal was refiled after 150 days, still without a certified copy. Other defects also remained.
    21.04.2025: Respondent applied for a certified copy of the NCLT order (prepared on 24.04.2025, collected 12.06.2025).

  • NCLAT order (10.11.2025): Condoned delay of 15 days in filing (under proviso to Section 61(2)) and delay of 150 days in refiling (upon deposit of ₹50,000 costs). Held that refiling delay was a matter between the Registry and the appellant.

  • Supreme Court appeal: Appellant challenged the condonation order.


4. Issues

  1. Whether an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC filed without a certified copy of the impugned order is a valid appeal, and whether the NCLAT can condone the delay in filing or refiling of such an appeal without ensuring compliance with Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016.

  2. Whether the NCLAT erred in condoning the delay in refiling (150 days) and in failing to reject the appeal at the threshold when the mandatory requirement of filing a certified copy was not complied with.


5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Mandatory requirement of certified copy – Rule 22(2) (Paras 7-9):

The Court held that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules is categorical: every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. This is not a mere technical requirement; it is an essential condition for the institution of an appeal. The decision in V. Nagarajan was relied upon to emphasise that a diligent litigant must apply for a certified copy before the limitation period expires, and the time taken to obtain the certified copy is excluded only upon such application. Failure to do so, and particularly filing an appeal without even applying for a certified copy, renders the appeal wholly incompetent.

B. Effect of filing without certified copy – not a curable defect (Para 10):

The Court distinguished between “defective” appeals (where the defect can be cured by subsequent filing) and “wholly incompetent” appeals (where the essential requirement is missing). Here, the respondent not only filed the original appeal without a certified copy but also refiled it on 10.03.2025 without a certified copy. She had not even applied for the certified copy until 21.04.2025 (after the refiling). No application for exemption from filing the certified copy was ever made under Rules 14 or 15 of the NCLAT Rules. Therefore, the appeal was incurably tainted and should have been rejected at the threshold.

C. NCLAT’s error – overlooking the fundamental defect (Paras 6, 10-11):

The NCLAT condoned the delays without first ascertaining whether the appeal was even validly instituted. The NCLAT treated the delay in refiling as a matter exclusively between it and the appellant, ignoring that the refiled appeal still lacked a certified copy. The NCLAT’s approach was erroneous in law.

D. Final conclusion (Para 11):

The filing and refiling of the appeal were incurably tainted. The NCLAT’s order condoning the delays was set aside. The appeals were allowed.


6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

  • An appeal under Section 61 of the IBC filed before the NCLAT without a certified copy of the impugned order is not merely a defective appeal but a wholly incompetent appeal that cannot be cured by condonation of delay. The NCLAT cannot condone such a fundamental defect.

  • Filing an application for a certified copy before the expiry of the limitation period is not optional; it is a mark of diligence and the only way to claim exclusion of the time taken to obtain the certified copy under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

  • The NCLAT’s power to condone delay under Section 61(2) of the IBC and its power to exempt from rules under Rules 14 and 15 of the NCLAT Rules does not extend to waiving the mandatory requirement of filing a certified copy without a specific application for exemption and without granting the opposing party an opportunity to be heard.


7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

The Court examined the scrutiny report of the NCLAT Registry, which listed 10 defects, including the absence of a certified copy of the impugned order. It noted that the respondent e‑filed the appeal on the last day of the condonable period (28.09.2024) but did not even apply for a certified copy at that time. The appeal was refiled on 10.03.2025 – still without a certified copy. The certified copy was applied for only on 21.04.2025 (after refiling) and collected on 12.06.2025.

The Court then applied the principle from V. Nagarajan that the act of applying for a certified copy is not a mere technicality but an indication of the party’s diligence. The Court also noted that the NCLAT had the power under Rules 14 and 15 to exempt a party from filing a certified copy, but only upon an application and not as a matter of right. The respondent never filed any such application.

The Court rejected the NCLAT’s reasoning that the delay in refiling was a matter between the Registry and the appellant. It held that the NCLAT’s primary duty was to ensure compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements before entertaining the appeal. Since those requirements were never met, the appeal ought to have been rejected at the threshold.


8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment reinforces the strict timeline regime under the IBC and the importance of complying with procedural requirements. It prevents litigants from abusing the condonation process by filing incomplete appeals on the last day and then seeking repeated extensions. The distinction between “defective” and “wholly incompetent” is practical and necessary. The judgment also provides clarity on the mandatory nature of Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules.

Potential concerns: One could argue that the NCLAT could have exercised its power under Rule 14 to condone the defect, especially since the certified copy was eventually obtained and filed. However, the Court noted that no application for exemption was ever made, and the respondent’s conduct (filing without applying for a certified copy for months) showed lack of diligence. The Court also placed emphasis on the fact that the appeal was refiled without the certified copy, which was a continuing defect.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited by respondents in IBC appeals to argue that an appeal filed without a certified copy is not maintainable, and that condonation of delay cannot cure such a fundamental defect. It will also guide NCLAT Registries to reject such appeals at the threshold rather than granting time to cure defects repeatedly. Litigants will be compelled to obtain certified copies before filing appeals, especially when the limitation period is about to expire.


9. Final Outcome

  • Civil Appeals (Nos. 14439‑14440 of 2025) allowed.

  • The order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in IA Nos. 1164 and 1165 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 252 of 2025 is set aside.

  • The filing and refiling of the appeal by respondent No. 1 (M Lalitha) is held to be incurably tainted; the appeal is incompetent.

  • Parties to bear their own costs.


10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

  • For appellants (in IBC appeals before NCLAT): Before filing an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC, ensure that you have obtained a certified copy of the impugned order. If the limitation period is about to expire, apply for the certified copy immediately and file a copy of the application along with the appeal. Alternatively, file an application under Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules seeking exemption from filing the certified copy, with an undertaking to file it within a short period. Do not wait until after refiling to apply for the certified copy.

  • For respondents (in IBC appeals before NCLAT): If the appellant files an appeal without a certified copy of the impugned order and without an application for exemption, raise a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal. Cite this judgment and V. Nagarajan to argue that the appeal is wholly incompetent and should be rejected at the threshold, even if the delay in filing is condoned.

  • For NCLAT/Registries: When an appeal is filed without a certified copy, do not treat it as a mere “defect” that can be cured by granting time under Rule 26(2). Require the appellant to file an application for exemption under Rule 14 immediately. If no such application is filed, or if the certified copy is not filed within a reasonable time even after condonation, reject the appeal. Also, when considering condonation of delay in refiling, examine whether the appeal ever became compliant with the mandatory requirements.


11.  Court Lines

“Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules categorically states that every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order.” (Para 7)

“The act of filing an application for a certified copy is not just a technical requirement for computation of limitation but an indication of the diligence of the party in pursuing the litigation in a timely fashion.” (Para 7, quoting V. Nagarajan)

“The filing of such appeal, without even applying for a certified copy of the order dated 14.08.2024, practically meant that there was no filing of an appeal in the eyes of law.” (Para 9)

“In effect, the appeal, as filed and refiled, was not a merely defective appeal, wherein the defects could be cured, but was a wholly incompetent appeal that did not satisfy the essentials to pass muster.” (Para 10)

“The NCLAT ought not to have extended such indulgence to respondent No. 1, without first ascertaining whether her appeal was instituted in accordance with the norms.” (Para 10)


12. Legal Strategy Insight

  • For the appellant (successful party at NCLT): If the opposite party files an appeal before the NCLAT without a certified copy, immediately file a counter‑objection or preliminary application pointing out the lack of certified copy. Request the NCLAT to reject the appeal as not maintainable without waiting for the delay condonation to be decided. If the NCLAT condones the delay but the appeal still lacks a certified copy, challenge the condonation order before the Supreme Court under Section 62, citing this judgment.

  • For the appellant before NCLAT (unsuccessful party at NCLT): Do not wait until the last day of limitation to file the appeal. Obtain the certified copy as soon as possible. If the certified copy is delayed, file an application for exemption under Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules along with the appeal, attaching a copy of the application for certified copy. If the limitation period has expired, file a separate application for condonation of delay under Section 61(2) explaining the delay and attaching proof of the certified copy application. After this judgment, the NCLAT will be stricter in enforcing the mandatory requirement.

  • For NCLAT/Registrars: When an appeal is e‑filed and the system shows that no certified copy is attached, immediately list the matter before the bench for directions rather than merely marking defects. The bench may either reject the appeal or grant a short time to file the certified copy with an appropriate application.

View full judgment (PDF)