https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776624 The SC held that the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was defective due to delay and failure to file a certified copy of the impugned order without seeking exemption or condonation of delay. The NCLAT erred in ignoring these procedural lapses and the limitation bar raised by the appellant. The Court emphasized that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules mandates annexing a certified copy to the appeal and that Rule 14's discretionary power to waive compliance does not apply automatically where no timely efforts are made. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed, underscoring the necessity for strict adherence to procedural requirements under the IBC regime. en-us Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Aug 2025 08:26:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776624 The SC held that the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was defective due to delay and failure to file a certified copy of the impugned order without seeking exemption or condonation of delay. The NCLAT erred in ignoring these procedural lapses and the limitation bar raised by the appellant. The Court emphasized that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules mandates annexing a certified copy to the appeal and that Rule 14's discretionary power to waive compliance does not apply automatically where no timely efforts are made. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed, underscoring the necessity for strict adherence to procedural requirements under the IBC regime. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776624