AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
In Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association Versus M. Lalitha and another. - 2026 (5) TMI 809 - Supreme Court, the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’ for short) allowed the resolution plan submitted by appellant in the present appeal on 14.08.2024, in the corporate insolvency resolution process initiated against Samson Builders and Developers Private Limited. The respondent, in the present appeal, the mother of the suspended director of the corporate debtor filed an appeal before the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLAT’ for short) challenging the order of NCLT.
The appeal was filed by the respondent on 28.09.2024 with a delay of 15 days. The Registry of NCLAT communicated the defects in the said appeal on 04.10.2024. The defects were rectified by the respondent but the same was refiled after a delay of 150 days from the last date fixed for rectification of mistakes.
Thus, in the appeal filed before NCLAT there are two applications are there with the prayer to condone the delay. The two applications were taken together by the NCLAT. The appellant, in the present appeal, opposed the application for the delay condonation. The NCLAT condoned both the delays – one 15 days delay in presenting the appeal and the other 150 days for filing the refiling of appeal after rectification of defects. The NCLAT opined in the second delay condonation petition that the matter was exclusively between the appellant and NCLAT. However, NCLAT directed the appellant to deposit Rs.50000/- with the Prime Minister Relief Fund. In respect of the first delay condonation application, the NCLAT observed that NCLAT can condone the delay up to 45 days. The delay was condoned in respect of these two applications by NCLAT by a common order dated 10.11.2025.
The appellant, in the present appeal, challenged the order dated 10.11.2025 of NCLAT before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court called for the relevant records from NCLAT. The Supreme Court analysed the Scrutiny Report, dated 27.05.2025 of the Registry of NCLAT. The last date for filing appeal before NCLAT was 13.09.2024. The appeal was filed on 28.09.2024. Therefore, delay condonation for 15 days was to be filed by the appellant and the said defect was intimated on 04.10.2024. The rectification is to be done within 7 days from the date of receipt of communication from NCLAT. Accordingly, the appeal shall be refiled on 11.10.2024 but the appeal was refiled on 10.03.2025.
Even after refiling the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that one of the glaring defects still remained unanswered is that a certified order copy dated 14.08.2024 against which the appeal was filed, was not filed. The Supreme Court found that the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 before the NCLAT was defective since the certified copy of the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 by NCLT was not attached. Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules pertains to presentation of appeals. Rule 22(2) categorically states that every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. The Supreme Court noted that the parties could not automatically dispense with their obligation to apply for and obtain a certified copy for filing an appeal under Rule 22. A person wishing to file an appeal is expected to file an application for the certified copy before the expiry of the limitation period, upon which ‘the requisite time’ for obtaining the certified copy is liable to The excluded while computing limitation.
The Supreme Court further observed that though Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules enabled parties being exempted from compliance with the requirement of the rules and though waiver on the filing of an appeal with a certified copy is often granted, it does not confer an automatic right on the applicant to dispense with compliance and render Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules nugatory. Therefore, 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.
The Supreme Court observed that in the present case, the certified copy of the order was not filed along with the refiled appeal but long thereafter. The certified copy of the order was sought to be filed by the appellant on 21.04.2025 and the same was made ready on 23.04.2025. It was not collected till 12.06.2025. 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. a diligent litigant is expected to apply for a certified copy of the order sought to be appealed against before the period of limitation runs out and, by doing so, such litigant would be entitled to seek exclusion of the time taken to procure the certified copy for the purpose of limitation. The respondent No.1 did not even choose to file an application for exemption from filing such certified copy at any point, be it at the time of filing the appeal on 28.09.2024 or its refiling on 10.03.2025. The Supreme Court observed that the appeal was wholly a incompetent appeal that did not satisfy the essentials to pass muster, in terms of the requirements prescribed under the Code and the NCLAT Rules.
However, the Supreme Court observed that NCLAT totally lost sight of these vital aspects while considering the two applications filed by respondent No. 1 seeking condonation of delay in the filing and the refiling of the appeal. 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. The Supreme Court found that the NCLAT failed to undertake this exercise.
The Supreme Court held that the filing/refiling of the appeal by respondent No. 1 was incurably tainted and the same ought to have been rejected at the threshold. The order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order.