IBC Appeal Filed Without Certified Copy or Exemption Plea Is Wholly Incompetent: Supreme Court in Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M Lalitha [2026 INSC 479]

In Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M Lalitha & Anr. (2026 INSC 479), the Supreme Court held that the NCLAT erred in condoning the delays in filing and refiling an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC without first ascertaining whether the appeal had been instituted in accordance with the norms (para 10). Since the appeal was filed on the last day of limitation without even applying for a certified copy of the NCLT order, as required by Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, and no exemption was sought, there was practically no filing of an appeal in the eyes of law (paras 7–10). A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeals of the successful resolution applicant (para 11).

Status: NCLAT, Chennai order dated 10.11.2025 in IA Nos. 1164 and 1165 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 252 of 2025 set aside; appeals allowed; parties to bear their own costs (para 11).

Headnote: IBC Appeal Without Certified Copy of the Impugned Order

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 61 and proviso to Section 61(2) – National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Rules 14, 15, 22(2) and 26(2) – Appeal against approval of resolution plan – Certified copy of impugned order not filed – No application for exemption – Delay in filing and refiling – Condonation of delay – Defective appeal versus incompetent appeal.

Held: (i) Delay in refiling is ordinarily not tested by the same strict standards as delay in filing, but here the refiled appeal was defective beyond redemption, as it was still not accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order (para 6).

(ii) Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules requires every appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order; following V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd., applying for a certified copy is not a mere technicality but an indication of the party's diligence (paras 7, 9).

(iii) Given the strict timelines under the Code, filing an appeal on the last day of limitation without even applying for a certified copy practically meant that there was no filing of an appeal in the eyes of law (para 9).

(iv) The minimum requirement, when filing without a certified copy, was an application for exemption, which the NCLAT could have considered under Rules 14 and 15; none was filed at the time of filing or refiling (para 10).

(v) Such an appeal is not a merely defective appeal whose defects can be cured, but a wholly incompetent appeal that does not satisfy the requirements of the Code and the NCLAT Rules (para 10).

(vi) The NCLAT ought to have first ascertained whether the appeal was instituted in accordance with the norms before condoning delay; the appeal was incurably tainted and ought to have been rejected at the threshold (paras 10–11).

(paras 6–11)

Case Details: Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M Lalitha (2026 INSC 479)

Final Outcome: Civil Appeals allowed; NCLAT order condoning the delays in filing and refiling set aside; filing/refiling held incurably tainted and liable to be rejected at the threshold; parties to bear their own costs.

Case: Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M Lalitha and another

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 479

Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 14439–14440 of 2025

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable

Date of Decision: 12 May 2026

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar (author) and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Relevant Acts & Sections: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 61 and proviso to Section 61(2); National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Rules 14, 15, 22(2) and 26(2)

Impugned Order: Common order dated 10.11.2025 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in IA Nos. 1164 and 1165 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 252 of 2025 (paras 4, 11)

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)

Key Holdings of the Supreme Court

• A refiled appeal still lacking a certified copy of the impugned order was defective beyond redemption, even allowing for the more lenient approach to delay in refiling (para 6).
• Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules mandates that every appeal be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order; the obligation to apply for it cannot be automatically dispensed with (para 7).
• Filing a Section 61 appeal without even applying for a certified copy practically means there is no filing of an appeal in the eyes of law (para 9).
• Where an appeal is filed without a certified copy, at the minimum an application for exemption must be filed for consideration under Rules 14 and 15 (para 10).
• An appeal filed and refiled without a certified copy and without an exemption plea is wholly incompetent, not merely defective (para 10).
• Before condoning delay, the NCLAT must first ascertain whether the appeal was instituted in accordance with the norms (paras 10–11).

Brief Facts of the Case

By order dated 14.08.2024 in IA (IBC)/216/KOB/2023 in CP(IB)/05/KOB/2021, the NCLT, Kochi Bench approved the resolution plan submitted by the appellant, an allottees' association, for the corporate debtor, Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. The first respondent, the mother of a suspended director of the corporate debtor, who also claimed to be its financial creditor, challenged this approval by an appeal e-filed before the NCLAT, Chennai on 28.09.2024 (para 2).

The appeal was filed with a delay of 15 days, for which IA No. 1164 of 2025 was filed. The NCLAT Registry communicated defects on 04.10.2024. The appeal was refiled only on 10.03.2025, though Rule 26(2) of the NCLAT Rules allows 7 days to cure defects, and IA No. 1165 of 2025 sought condonation of a 150-day delay in refiling (paras 3, 5).

On 10.11.2025, despite the appellant's opposition, the NCLAT condoned the 150-day delay in refiling on deposit of costs of ₹50,000 with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, observing that delay in refiling was a matter exclusively between it and the party appealing before it, and treated the delay in filing as within the 45-day upper limit under the proviso to Section 61(2) (para 4).

The Supreme Court called for the record. The NCLAT Registry's Scrutiny Report dated 27.05.2025 showed that the 30-day limitation expired on 13.09.2024, the condonable period ran till 28.09.2024 (the very day of e-filing), and ten defects remained even after refiling, including that no certified copy of the impugned order had been filed (para 5). The first respondent applied for the certified copy only on 21.04.2025; it was prepared on 24.04.2025 but not collected till 12.06.2025 (para 8).

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC, filed and refiled without a certified copy of the impugned order and without an exemption application, was validly instituted (paras 1, 6–10).
2. Whether the NCLAT was right in condoning the delays in filing and refiling without first examining whether the appeal was instituted in accordance with the norms (paras 10–11).

Court's Findings and Reasoning

Defective beyond redemption (para 6): The Court accepted that delay in refiling is ordinarily not tested by the strict standards applied to delay in filing. However, even after refiling on 10.03.2025, one of the glaring defects (Defect No. 07) was that no certified copy of the NCLT order dated 14.08.2024 had been filed.

Rule 22(2) and V. Nagarajan (para 7): Relying on the 3-Judge Bench decision in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited, the Court reiterated that parties cannot automatically dispense with their obligation to apply for and obtain a certified copy; Rule 14 permits exemption, but waiver is not an automatic right that renders Rule 22(2) nugatory, and filing an application for a certified copy indicates diligence.

Certified copy obtained long after refiling (para 8): The certified copy was applied for only on 21.04.2025, prepared on 24.04.2025 and collected on 12.06.2025; the appeal refiled on 10.03.2025 was therefore not accompanied by it.

Strict IBC timelines (para 9): Referring to Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited, which held the Code's timelines to be of essence, the Court noted that the appeal was e-filed on the last day available under the proviso to Section 61(2), without even applying for a certified copy, which practically meant there was no filing of an appeal in the eyes of law.

No exemption application (para 10): The first respondent did not apply for exemption at the time of filing on 28.09.2024 or refiling on 10.03.2025. This was the minimum requirement; such an application could have been considered under Rules 14 and 15 of the NCLAT Rules. The appeal was therefore wholly incompetent, not merely defective.

NCLAT's error (paras 10–11): The NCLAT lost sight of these vital aspects and extended indulgence without first ascertaining whether the appeal was instituted in accordance with the norms. The filing and refiling were incurably tainted and ought to have been rejected at the threshold.

Final Outcome and Directions

• Order dated 10.11.2025 of the NCLAT, Chennai in IA Nos. 1164 and 1165 in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 252 of 2025 set aside (para 11).
• Filing/refiling of the appeal by the first respondent held incurably tainted and liable to be rejected at the threshold (para 11).
• Civil Appeals allowed; parties to bear their own costs (para 11).

Legal Principle Laid Down

An appeal under Section 61 of the IBC must be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order as required by Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, or at the least by an application for exemption under Rules 14 and 15. An appeal filed and refiled without either is wholly incompetent, not merely defective, and the NCLAT must examine whether the appeal was properly instituted before condoning delay in its filing or refiling (paras 7, 9–11).

Precedents Relied Upon

• V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited, (2022) 2 SCC 244 – Relied upon – obligation to apply for and file a certified copy under Rule 22; waiver is not automatic and the application shows diligence. Discussed at paras 7, 9.
• Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited, (2022) 2 SCC 401 – Relied upon – timelines under the Code are of essence. Discussed at para 9.

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.

Para 6: "No doubt, delay in refiling of a proceeding would, ordinarily, not be tested by the same strict standards that would be applied to delay in the filing of such proceeding but we find that, in the case on hand, the appeal which was refiled by respondent No. 1 was defective beyond redemption."

Para 7: "This Court, therefore, held that 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."

Para 9: "However, 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."

Para 10: "In effect, the appeal, as filed and refiled, was not a merely defective appeal, wherein the defects could be cured, but was a wholly incompetent appeal that did not satisfy the essentials to pass muster, in terms of the requirements prescribed under the Code and the NCLAT Rules."

Para 10: "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."

Para 11: "On the above analysis, we hold 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."

Practical Impact of the Ruling

• For appellants before the NCLAT: Apply for a certified copy of the NCLT order before limitation runs out; if filing without it, file an exemption application at once under Rules 14 and 15 (paras 9–10).
• For resolution applicants: An approved resolution plan cannot be unsettled by an appeal that was never validly instituted; incompetence of the appeal can be raised against condonation of delay (paras 10–11).
• For the NCLAT: Before condoning delay in filing or refiling, it must first check whether the appeal meets the essentials of the Code and the NCLAT Rules (para 10).
• On refiling delays: The usual leniency towards delay in refiling does not save an appeal that is defective beyond redemption (para 6).

FAQs on IBC Appeal Without Certified Copy

1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M Lalitha?

It set aside the NCLAT's order condoning the delays in filing and refiling an appeal against approval of a resolution plan, holding that the appeal was incurably tainted and ought to have been rejected at the threshold (para 11).

2. Is a certified copy of the NCLT order mandatory for a Section 61 appeal?

Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules requires every appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy; exemption may be sought under Rule 14, but it is not an automatic right (para 7).

3. What should an appellant do if the certified copy is not available?

The appellant should apply for the certified copy before limitation expires, and at the minimum file an application for exemption so that the NCLAT can allow it to be filed within further time under Rules 14 and 15 (paras 9–10).

4. Is delay in refiling treated more leniently than delay in filing?

Ordinarily yes, but that leniency did not help here because the refiled appeal still lacked a certified copy and was defective beyond redemption (para 6).

5. What is the difference between a defective appeal and an incompetent appeal?

A defective appeal has curable defects; an appeal filed and refiled without a certified copy and without an exemption plea does not satisfy the essentials of the Code and the NCLAT Rules and is wholly incompetent (para 10).

Keywords: 2026 INSC 479, Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M Lalitha, Section 61 IBC, certified copy, Rule 22(2) NCLAT Rules, Rule 14 NCLAT Rules, exemption application, condonation of delay, delay in refiling, resolution plan, NCLAT Chennai, V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat, Ebix Singapore, incompetent appeal, Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court judgment

Related on LegalTaxGuru

• More Corporate Law Supreme Court Reportable judgments
• Corporate Law articles

Download Judgment PDF – Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M Lalitha

Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 479 – Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M Lalitha & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 14439–14440 of 2025) – Download Judgment PDF

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).