Case Name: Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association versus M Lalitha and another 

Petition Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 14439-14440 of 2025 

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 479 

Date of Judgment: 12.05.2026

Coram: Honourable Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran 

INTRODUCTION

The core issue before the Supreme Court in this case was the validity of an appeal filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Specifically, the Court examined whether the NCLAT was justified in condoning significant delays in the filing and refiling of an appeal that was fundamentally defective, including the failure to file a certified copy of the impugned order as mandatorily required under the NCLAT Rules, 2016.

FACTS

The NCLT, Kochi Bench, approved a resolution plan submitted by Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association. Respondent No. 1 (M. Lalitha), mother of a suspended director of the corporate debtor and claiming to be its financial creditor, challenged this order before the NCLAT, Chennai. The appeal was e-filed on 28.09.2024, the last day of the condonable period, without a certified copy of the impugned order and without even applying for one. Defects were communicated by the Registry on 04.10.2024, requiring cure within 7 days under Rule 26(2) of the NCLAT Rules. The appeal was refiled only on 10.03.2025 (150-day delay), and even then, multiple defects remained, most critically the absence of a certified copy. Respondent No. 1 applied for the certified copy only on 21.04.2025. Despite this, the NCLAT condoned both delays on 10.11.2025, imposing a cost of ₹50,000. The appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging this order.

ISSUES

1. 1. Whether the appeal was validly instituted under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, especially when no certified copy of the impugned order was filed and no exemption application was sought?
   2. Whether the NCLAT could condone a 150‑day delay in refiling the appeal when the refiled appeal remained fundamentally defective, including the absence of a certified copy of the impugned order?

• Whether filing an appeal without even applying for a certified copy of the impugned order renders the appeal incurably incompetent and liable to be rejected at the threshold?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Appellant: The appeal was never validly instituted, as it lacked a certified copy of the impugned order, as required under Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules. No exemption application was ever filed. Given the strict timelines under the IBC, the appeal was wholly incompetent and ought to have been rejected at the threshold rather than condoned.

Respondent: The 15-day filing delay fell within the permissible outer limit under Section 61(2) of the IBC and was thus condonable. The defects in refilling were curable, and the Tribunal had discretion to condone the delay upon payment of costs. Procedural defects should not defeat substantive justice.

JUDGEMENT AND  REASONING

On issue I, the Supreme Court held that the very institution of the appeal before the NCLAT was incurably defective and set aside the NCLAT’s order condoning the delays. In its reasoning, the Court noted that under Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, every appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. Relying on its three-Judge Bench decision in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited (2022) 2 SCC 244, the Court observed that a diligent litigant is expected to apply for a certified copy before the limitation period expires, and that doing so indicates diligence in pursuing litigation. 

On issue II, the Court found that respondent No. 1 had not even applied for a certified copy of the NCLT’s order, long after the appeal was refiled and had never filed any application for exemption from producing such a certified copy under Rules 14 or 15 of the NCLAT Rules. The Court emphasised that, given the strict timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which are held to be of the essence (referring to EbiX Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited (2022) 2 SCC 401 ), the filing of an appeal without even applying for a certified copy practically meant that there was no valid appeal in the eyes of the law. 

On issue III, the Court further observed that the appeal, as filed and refiled, was not merely defective but wholly incompetent, failing to satisfy the essential requirements prescribed under the Code and the NCLAT Rules. Concluding accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT’s order dated 10.11.2025, passed in IA Nos. 1164 and 1165 of 2025 allowed the civil appeals and directed the parties to bear their own costs.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the NCLAT, and held that the filing and refiling of the appeal by Respondent No. 1 were incurably tainted and legally unsustainable. The Court ruled that the appeal ought to have been rejected at the threshold for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under the IBC and the NCLAT Rules. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.