CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudharyv.Adani Infrastructure and Developers Private Limited

Legal Analysis: CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure and Developers Private Limited

Citation: 2026 INSC 629

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Date of Decision: June 1, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 arising out of D.No.5988/2026 against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi dated 8th December 2025.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant (liquidator of a corporate debtor under liquidation) filed an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC challenging an NCLAT order. The appeal was presented beyond the 45‑day period but within the 15‑day grace period (delay of 7 days). The appeal was marked defective, and after curing defects, it was re‑filed with a further delay of 82 days. The appellant sought condonation of both the filing delay and the re‑filing delay. The Supreme Court held that: (i) under Section 62 IBC, the outer limit for filing an appeal is 60 days (45 days + 15 days on sufficient cause); (ii) beyond 60 days, the Court has no jurisdiction to condone any further delay; (iii) a defective appeal that is not cured within the 28‑day period prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (Order VIII Rule 6) cannot be revived; (iv) the filing of a defective appeal does not stop the limitation clock; a litigant cannot file a defective appeal as a device to save limitation and then cure defects at leisure; (v) the statutory scheme of the IBC overrides any general procedural leniency regarding re‑filing delays. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time‑barred.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure and Developers Private Limited

Citation: 2026 INSC 629

Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of D.No.5988/2026

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Date of Decision: June 1, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated 8th December 2025 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No.2316 of 2024.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 62 (appeal to Supreme Court from NCLAT order – 45 days, extendable by 15 days on sufficient cause, total maximum 60 days).

• Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order VIII Rule 6 (re‑filing of petitions and appeals – 28 days to cure defects; thereafter, application for condonation of re‑filing delay may be filed, but discretion is exercised).

• Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 (condonation of delay – general principle, but held inapplicable beyond the statutory outer limit under IBC).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd. (2018) 1 SCC 353 – Strict adherence to timelines under IBC is of essence; even under Section 62, 45 days with a grace period not exceeding 15 days.

• Kalparaj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited (2021) 10 SCC 401 – Time‑bound resolution is the essence of IBC; no judicial intervention beyond prescribed timelines.

• National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Dunar Foods Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 224 – Reaffirms strict timelines.

• V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC 244 – Same principle.

• Tata Steel Limited v. Raj Kumar Banerjee (2022) 8 SCC 210 – Same principle.

• PEC Ltd. v. M/s Phulchand Exports Private Ltd. (2022) 6 SCC 794 – Delay beyond maximum condonable period under Section 62 leads to dismissal of appeal.

• Saturn Ventures and Advisors Pvt. Limited v. S. Gopalakrishnan (2025) SCC OnLine SC 55 – Two days’ delay not condoned; Court has no power to condone beyond statutory outer limit.

• CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure & Developers (P) Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1100) – Earlier coordinate Bench decision condoning re‑filing delay under Section 61 IBC (before NCLAT) – distinguished on facts.

3. Relevant Facts

The appellant, the liquidator of a corporate debtor under liquidation, filed an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC challenging an order of the NCLAT dated 8th December 2025. The appeal was presented on 29th January 2026. The period of limitation under Section 62(1) is 45 days from the date of receipt of the NCLAT order. The appellant had a delay of 7 days beyond 45 days, but this was within the grace period of 15 days provided under Section 62(2), subject to sufficient cause being shown. An application seeking condonation of the 7‑day filing delay was filed.

The appeal was marked defective by the Registry. The appellant cured the defects and re‑filed the appeal after a further delay of 82 days. A separate application seeking condonation of the re‑filing delay was filed.

The appellant argued that the Supreme Court Rules permit condonation of re‑filing delay upon sufficient cause, and that the appellant being a neutral officer (liquidator) should be treated liberally. Reliance was placed on an earlier coordinate Bench decision in the same matter (CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure & Developers (P) Ltd.), where re‑filing delay before the NCLAT was condoned.

The respondent opposed condonation, arguing that the strict timelines of the IBC cannot be circumvented by filing a defective appeal.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1: Whether an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC filed within the statutory period (45 days + 15 days grace) but marked defective, and re‑filed after curing defects beyond the 28‑day period prescribed under the Supreme Court Rules, can be entertained upon condonation of re‑filing delay.

Issue No. 2: Whether the Court has jurisdiction to condone re‑filing delay beyond the statutory outer limit of 60 days under Section 62 IBC, when the initial filing itself was within the grace period.

Issue No. 3: Whether the earlier order condoning re‑filing delay in the same litigation (at the NCLAT stage) entitles the appellant to a similar indulgence at the Supreme Court stage.

Issue No. 4: Whether the appellant’s explanation for the re‑filing delay (internal oversight, officer leaving the position) constitutes sufficient cause.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. The statutory scheme of Section 62 IBC prescribes an absolute outer limit of 60 days (Paras 5-9).

The Court held that under Section 62 IBC, an appeal must be filed within 45 days. The Court may allow a further 15 days upon sufficient cause being shown, but not beyond. The outer limit is 60 days from the date of receipt of the NCLAT order. After 60 days, the Court has no jurisdiction to condone any delay – not even a single day. This is a jurisdictional bar, not a discretionary extension. Several precedents including Mobilox Innovations, PEC Ltd., and Saturn Ventures were cited to affirm that the concept of condonation of delay beyond the statutory grace period is alien to the IBC.

B. A defective appeal is not a validly instituted appeal; filing a defective appeal does not stop the limitation clock (Paras 15-17).

The Court held that an appeal under Section 62 IBC must be defect‑free and capable of being acted upon by the Registry. If an appeal is filed with defects, it does not constitute a valid institution. The defects must be cured within the time prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules (28 days under Order VIII Rule 6). If the defects are not cured within 28 days, the appeal cannot be revived by seeking condonation of re‑filing delay. To hold otherwise would allow litigants to file a defective appeal as a device to save limitation and then cure defects at leisure, defeating the object of the IBC. The Court answered in the negative: no litigant can be permitted to circumvent the statutory scheme by seeking condonation of re‑filing delay beyond 28 days after initially lodging a defective appeal.

C. The Supreme Court Rules cannot override the express provisions of the IBC (Paras 18, 25).

The Court acknowledged that Order VIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 allows a period of 28 days for curing defects, and an application for condonation of re‑filing delay may be filed thereafter. However, this general procedural rule cannot override the specific statutory edict of the IBC. The IBC, being a special statute with a stringent time‑bound regime, prevails. Therefore, for appeals under Section 62 IBC, the 28‑day window for curing defects is not a gateway to indefinite extension; rather, once the 60‑day outer limit plus the 28‑day curing period is exhausted, the right to appeal stands extinguished.

D. The earlier indulgence at the NCLAT stage does not entitle the appellant to repeated indulgence at the Supreme Court stage (Paras 20-24).

The Court distinguished the earlier coordinate Bench decision in CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure & Developers (P) Ltd. (relating to re‑filing delay before the NCLAT under Section 61 IBC). In that case, the Court had taken a liberal view because the delay was attributable to the lawyer’s clerk and the appeal was otherwise filed within time. However, that indulgence was confined to the peculiar facts of that case and did not create a precedent for serial condonations. Having once availed the benefit of a liberal approach, the appellant cannot legitimately assume that further defaults at the next appellate stage would automatically attract similar discretion. The discipline of limitation under the IBC does not countenance repeated condonations across successive appellate stages.

E. Even on merits, the explanation for re‑filing delay was insufficient (Para 27).

The Court noted that the appellant’s explanation – “internal oversight within the Office of the Liquidator” and “a concerned officer left the position” – was vague and did not constitute sufficient cause. Even if the Court were to ignore the jurisdictional bar, the re‑filing delay of 82 days remained unexplained.

F. The appeal was dismissed as time‑barred (Paras 28-29).

Since the appeal was defective and the defects were not cured within the permissible period (neither within 60 days from the NCLAT order nor within 28 days of defect notification), the appeal was held to be barred by limitation. The applications for condonation were dismissed.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• For an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC, the statutory outer limit is 60 days (45 days + 15 days grace). Beyond 60 days, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to condone any delay – even a single day. This is a jurisdictional bar, not a matter of discretion.

• A defective appeal filed within the limitation period does not constitute a valid institution. The defects must be cured within the time prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules (28 days). If the defects are not cured within that period, the appeal cannot be revived by seeking condonation of re‑filing delay. The 28‑day window for curing defects is not an extension of the limitation period; it is a procedural window that must be complied with while the appeal is still alive.

• Filing a defective appeal as a device to save limitation and then curing defects at leisure is not permissible. Such a practice would defeat the object of the IBC.

• The general procedural rules of the Supreme Court (e.g., Order VIII Rule 6 on re‑filing delays) cannot override the express statutory timelines of the IBC. The IBC prevails.

• An indulgence granted at an earlier stage of litigation (e.g., condonation of delay before the NCLAT) does not entitle a litigant to a similar indulgence at a subsequent appellate stage. The law of limitation under the IBC does not countenance serial condonations.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis

The Court first examined the statutory scheme of Section 62 IBC. It noted that the provision permits an appeal to be filed within 45 days, with a further grace period of 15 days upon sufficient cause being shown. Beyond 60 days, the Court has no power to entertain the appeal. This is a complete code for limitation, and the general law of limitation (Section 5 of the Limitation Act) has no application beyond the prescribed outer limit.

The Court then examined the defect and re‑filing issue. The appeal was presented on 29th January 2026. The defects were notified by the Registry. The appellant cured the defects and re‑filed the appeal after 82 days. The Court held that the 28‑day period under Order VIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, is the maximum period allowed for curing defects. If the defects are not cured within that period, the appeal cannot be revived by an application for condonation of re‑filing delay, because the appeal itself has become time‑barred. The Court reasoned that if a litigant could file a defective appeal within 60 days and then take an unlimited time to cure defects, the entire discipline of limitation under the IBC would be rendered nugatory.

The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on the earlier coordinate Bench decision. In that case, the issue was re‑filing delay before the NCLAT under Section 61 IBC, not before the Supreme Court under Section 62 IBC. Moreover, that decision turned on the specific fact that the delay was attributable to the lawyer’s clerk, and the Court had emphasized that the standards for re‑filing delay are less rigorous. However, the present case involved not only re‑filing delay but also a filing delay that had to be condoned within the 60‑day window. The Court held that the earlier indulgence did not create a right to repeated indulgence.

The Court also noted that even if the jurisdictional bar were not absolute, the explanation provided by the appellant – “internal oversight” and “officer left the position” – was insufficient to constitute “sufficient cause” under Section 62(2). The delay was avoidable and not satisfactorily explained.

Consequently, the applications for condonation were dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed as time‑barred.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment provides much‑needed clarity on the interplay between limitation under the IBC and the procedural rules on re‑filing. It correctly holds that the statutory outer limit under Section 62 IBC is absolute and cannot be circumvented by filing a defective appeal and then taking months to cure defects. This prevents abuse of process and upholds the legislative objective of time‑bound resolution under the IBC. The distinction between the earlier indulgence at the NCLAT stage and the present Supreme Court stage is also logical – serial condonations would undermine finality. The judgment also reinforces that the IBC is a complete code and that general procedural rules cannot override its express provisions.

Potential concerns: The judgment may be seen as overly strict in cases where the defects are minor and the re‑filing delay is minimal. However, the Court’s reasoning is that the 60‑day outer limit is jurisdictional; once that period expires, the Court cannot even examine the merits of the re‑filing delay. This is a strict but legally sound interpretation. Another concern is that the judgment does not discuss the situation where the appeal is filed within 45 days but the Registry takes an unreasonable time to notify defects. However, in this case, the appellant did not raise any such issue.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in all appeals under Section 62 IBC where the appellant files a defective appeal. It warns litigants that filing a defective appeal does not stop the limitation clock; defects must be cured within the 28‑day period, and the total time from the NCLAT order to the final re‑filing must not exceed 60 days (plus the 28 days?) – actually, the Court implies that the 60‑day outer limit is absolute; the 28‑day curing period must be completed within the 60‑day window. This will force litigants to ensure that appeals under Section 62 are filed in a defect‑free manner. It also discourages the practice of “filing first, perfecting later” in IBC matters.

9. Final Outcome

The Civil Appeal was dismissed as time‑barred.

• The application seeking condonation of filing delay (7 days) and the application seeking condonation of re‑filing delay (82 days) were both dismissed.

• The Court held that an appeal under Section 62 IBC must be filed within 60 days at the utmost, and that a defective appeal, if not cured within 28 days of defect notification (and within the overall 60‑day window), cannot be revived.

• The appeal was not maintainable on the ground of limitation.

• Connected applications stood dismissed.

• No order as to costs.

10. Practical Application

For litigants filing appeals under Section 62 IBC: Ensure that the appeal is defect‑free at the time of filing. If any defects exist, cure them immediately – preferably within a few days, and certainly within the 28‑day period prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules. The total time from the date of receipt of the NCLAT order to the date of re‑filing after curing defects must not exceed 60 days. Do not assume that filing a defective appeal within 45 days will save limitation. The Registry’s notification of defects does not extend the limitation period. If the defects are not cured within the 28‑day period, the appeal will become time‑barred.

For lawyers practicing in IBC matters: When preparing an appeal under Section 62, conduct a thorough pre‑filing check to avoid defects. Common defects include: (i) omission of certified copy of the NCLAT order, (ii) improper pagination, (iii) missing annexures, (iv) lack of proper verification, (v) non‑filing of limitation affidavit (if applicable). If the appeal is time‑sensitive, file a defect‑free appeal even if it means filing a few days later, rather than filing a defective appeal earlier. After filing, monitor the defect list daily and cure defects within 48 hours. Do not rely on the 28‑day period as a safe harbour; cure defects as soon as possible.

For the Supreme Court Registry: When notifying defects in an IBC appeal under Section 62, clearly mention the date by which defects must be cured, and also inform the litigant that failure to cure defects within the 28‑day period (and within the overall 60‑day statutory outer limit) will result in the appeal being treated as time‑barred. Maintain a separate register for IBC appeals to monitor timely curing of defects.

For a party opposing an appeal under Section 62: Immediately check the date of receipt of the NCLAT order and the date of filing of the appeal. Calculate the number of days. If the appeal was filed beyond 60 days, file a preliminary objection that the Court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. Also, if the appeal was filed with defects and the defects were not cured within 28 days of notification (and within the 60‑day window), argue that the appeal is not validly instituted and should be dismissed as time‑barred.

For a court hearing an application for condonation of re‑filing delay in an IBC appeal: First, determine whether the initial filing was within the 60‑day outer limit. If the initial filing was beyond 60 days (even by one day), the Court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. If the initial filing was within 60 days but the defects were not cured within 28 days, examine whether the total time from the NCLAT order to the re‑filing date exceeds 60 days. If it does, the appeal is time‑barred. Do not condone re‑filing delay in such cases. The IBC’s strict timelines must prevail.

11.  Court Lines

Line 1 (Outer limit under Section 62 – Para 4):
“Section 62 of the IBC permits an appeal to be filed before this Court within 45 (forty-five) days, with a further grace period of only 15 (fifteen) days, and that too, only upon sufficient cause being shown. Thus, the outer limit statutorily permissible is 60 (sixty) days, beyond which the appeal itself becomes barred and the Court's jurisdiction to condone the delay ceases.”

Line 2 (Defective appeal not valid institution – Para 16):
“Can or should a litigant be permitted to circumvent the rigours of limitation by filing a defective appeal as a device to save limitation and, thereafter, to opt to cure the notified defects at leisure? Can or should this Court countenance such a practice? The answers to both questions have to be a resounding 'NO'.”

Line 3 (IBC prevails over SCR – Para 18):
“The IBC must prevail being the statutory edict. Though indisputable that the standards for examining a prayer for condoning a re-filing delay is certainly less rigorous than a filing delay but such standard would stand true and be applicable for the general laws... Section 62, IBC is, however, a complete code in itself for filing of appeals and is different from other laws.”

Line 4 (No serial condonations – Para 24):
“A litigant who has once secured indulgence in relation to delay cannot legitimately proceed on the assumption that further defaults engendered at the next appellate stage would automatically attract a similar exercise of discretion. To hold otherwise would render the law of limitation under the IBC progressively elastic at every successive stage of challenge, defeating the legislative objective of expedition and finality.”

Line 5 (Curing defects within 28 days – Para 25):
“Curing of defects arising out of a defectively filed appeal under Section 62, IBC is permissible within 28 (twenty-eight) days of notification thereof by the Registry. If the defects are cured within 28 (twenty-eight) days, the appeal would deserve registration upon removal of the 'D No.' However, there being no scope for curing defects after lapse of the period of 28 (twenty-eight) days in respect of an appeal under Section 62, IBC, filing of an application for re-filing delay does not arise.”

Line 6 (Dismissal – Para 28-29):
“Be that as it may, the defective appeal stands dismissed as time-barred having been filed beyond the maximum period condonable in terms of the IBC. Connected applications too stand dismissed.”

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For an appellant filing an appeal under Section 62 IBC: Do not take the 28‑day re‑filing period for granted. The safest approach is to file a defect‑free appeal on the first attempt. Before filing, have the appeal reviewed by a senior colleague or a professional typist. Use a checklist: (i) certified copy of the NCLAT order attached? (ii) limitation affidavit filed? (iii) index and pagination correct? (iv) all annexures legible? (v) vakalatnama properly executed? (vi) court fee paid? If you discover a defect after filing, cure it immediately – preferably within 24-48 hours. Do not wait for the Registry to issue a defect list. Communicate with the Registry proactively.

For a respondent who wishes to oppose an appeal on limitation: As soon as the appeal is filed, obtain a copy. Check the date of the NCLAT order and the date of filing. If the appeal was filed beyond 60 days, file a preliminary objection (caveat or counter‑affidavit) stating that the Court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. If the appeal was filed within 60 days but defects were notified and the re‑filing took more than 28 days, argue that the appeal is not validly instituted. Cite this judgment. If the Registry has already numbered the appeal, still raise the objection at the hearing.

For a lawyer handling an IBC appeal with re‑filing delay: If the re‑filing delay has already occurred, and the total time from the NCLAT order to re‑filing exceeds 60 days, do not waste time on a condonation application – it will be dismissed. If the re‑filing delay is within the 60‑day window (i.e., initial filing + re‑filing still within 60 days), you may seek condonation, but you must show that the defects were cured promptly and that the delay in re‑filing was not due to negligence. However, after this judgment, the Court will likely not condone any re‑filing delay that causes the total time to exceed 60 days, regardless of the explanation.

For a liquidator or resolution professional: You are a statutory officer, but you are not immune from the law of limitation. Do not assume that the Court will treat you leniently because you are acting for the benefit of stakeholders. The IBC applies equally to all. Ensure that your legal team files appeals in a timely and defect‑free manner. If you rely on external counsel, include in your engagement letter a clause requiring them to file the appeal within the prescribed period and to cure defects within 48 hours. Monitor the progress actively.

For a court dealing with an application for condonation of re‑filing delay in an IBC appeal: First, compute the total days from the date of receipt of the NCLAT order to the date of re‑filing after curing defects. If that total exceeds 60 days, the appeal is time‑barred irrespective of the merits of the condonation application. Do not entertain any argument about “sufficient cause” for re‑filing delay in such cases. If the total is within 60 days but the defects were cured after 28 days, examine whether the 28‑day period under the Supreme Court Rules is mandatory or directory. After this judgment, it is mandatory. Therefore, dismiss the appeal. Only in exceptional circumstances (e.g., Registry’s delay in notifying defects, or force majeure) may a different view be taken – but the judgment does not leave room for that.