Mandatory certified-copy compliance in insolvency appeals controls maintainability and cannot be cured by delay condonation.

Compliance with the certified-copy requirement for an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is treated as mandatory, and an appeal filed or refiled without the impugned order's certified copy, or without seeking exemption from filing it, is not properly instituted. The text also states that delay condonation cannot cure that basic defect: the appellate tribunal must first determine whether a valid appeal exists before granting indulgence on delay. On that reasoning, the procedural defect makes the appeal incompetent at the threshold and undermines the order condoning delay.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed and refiled without a certified copy of the impugned order, and without seeking exemption from filing it, was maintainable. (ii) Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in filing and refiling the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed and refiled without a certified copy of the impugned order, and without seeking exemption from filing it, was maintainable.

Analysis: Rule 22(2) of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 requires every appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. The absence of that document at the stage of refiling was not treated as a mere curable irregularity in the facts of the case, because the certified copy had not even been applied for before the appeal was refiled and no exemption had been sought under the relevant procedural rules. The filing and refiling were therefore held to be contrary to the essential requirements governing institution of the appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal, as filed and refiled, was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected at the threshold.

Issue (ii): Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in filing and refiling the appeal.

Analysis: The statutory timeline under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was treated as strict, and the requirement of a certified copy was linked to diligence and lawful institution of the appeal. Since the appeal was presented and re-presented without compliance with the certified-copy requirement and without the necessary exemption application, the Tribunal should first have examined whether a valid appeal had been instituted at all before granting indulgence on delay. Its failure to do so vitiated the order condoning delay.

Conclusion: The condonation of delay was unjustified and the order granting it could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal was set aside and the appeals were allowed because the underlying appeal had not been properly instituted in accordance with the mandatory procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, compliance with the mandatory requirement of filing a certified copy of the impugned order is an essential condition for a valid appeal, and an appeal filed or refiled without such compliance, and without seeking exemption, is incompetent and cannot be saved by condonation of delay alone.

---