“No Certified Copy, No Appeal” – The Supreme Court’s Strict View on Limitation in IBC Appeals
Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. DSK Global Education & Research Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2025 INSC 959)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court in Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. DSK Global Education & Research Pvt. Ltd. delivered on 12 August 2025, has reiterated, with exceptional clarity, that:

An appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is fatally defective and liable to be rejected if it is (a) filed beyond the statutory 30 + 15-day window and/or (b) not accompanied by the certified copy of the impugned National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order, unless exemption/extension is specifically sought and granted.

The decision arose out of a challenge to a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment that had entertained the respondent’s appeal despite apparent non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements. By allowing the Ashdan appeal, the Supreme Court has:

• Re-affirmed earlier three-judge bench rulings (V. Nagarajan; A. Rajendra) on limitation in IBC matters.
• Clarified the narrow scope of NCLAT’s powers to relax procedural rules (Rules 14 & 15) vis-à-vis Rule 22(2).
• Set a cautionary precedent for litigants and tribunals alike – non-filing of a certified copy is not a curable defect per se; diligence within statutory timelines is indispensable.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. The appeal before the NCLAT had been e-filed on 25 July 2023 without (i) a certified copy of the NCLT order dated 23 June 2023 and (ii) an application for condonation of delay.
2. Applications for condonation and for filing the certified copy were moved belatedly (23 Aug and 22 Sept 2023).
3. The NCLAT decided the matter on merits (clubbed with 10 other appeals) but overlooked limitation.
4. The Supreme Court held that the statutory clock started on the date of pronouncement (23 June 2023), not the date of uploading (26 June 2023), and the 45-day outer limit expired on 07 Aug 2023.
5. Because the appeal was not duly instituted within that window nor accompanied by a certified copy (Rule 22(2)), the NCLAT lacked jurisdiction ab initio; its judgment was therefore set aside.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. V. Nagarajan v. Sks Ispat & Power Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC 244
   – The Court emphasised that IBC is a “complete code” and imposes strict, true deadlines. It held that the act of seeking a certified copy is an index of diligence, and Rule 22(2) cannot be rendered nugatory by resorting to Rule 14.
2. Essar Steel (India) Ltd. (CoC) v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2020) 8 SCC 531
   – Highlighted the legislative intent of expeditious resolution and the outer limit of 330 days for CIRP.
3. A. Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao (2025 INSC 447)
   – Re-affirmed that limitation is triggered on pronouncement and that Section 12(2) Limitation Act exclusion is available only if an application for a certified copy is filed within limitation.
4. Innovators Cleantech Pvt. Ltd. v. Passari Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2024) ibclaw.in 452 NCLAT
   – Relied upon by respondent but held inconsistent with Supreme Court’s binding law.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Supreme Court

1. Statutory Scheme: Section 61(2) IBC gives 30 days to appeal NCLT orders, extendable by a further 15 days on “sufficient cause”. Rule 22(2) NCLAT Rules states an appeal “shall” be accompanied by a certified copy.
2. Commencement of Limitation: The Court treated 23 June 2023 (pronouncement in open court) as the starting point, per A. Rajendra. Uploading on the website is legally irrelevant when pronouncement is undisputed.
3. Certified Copy Requirement: Filing without a certified copy, without seeking exemption up-front, is a defective institution. Rule 14 (power to exempt) is discretionary and cannot obliterate the “shall” of Rule 22(2).
4. Diligence and “Technical” Objections: What respondents labelled a technicality is, in fact, substantive. The Court labelled the NCLAT’s merits judgment a “super-structure erected on an illusory foundation”.
5. Jurisdictional Consequence: Since a valid appeal was never properly instituted, the NCLAT never acquired appellate jurisdiction; its decision is void.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Zero-Tolerance to Delay: Litigants will face dismissal if they do not (a) apply for a certified copy promptly and (b) file within the 30 + 15-day outer limit.
• NCLAT Practice: The Tribunal will have to scrutinise limitation at the admission stage. Expect a procedural checklist approach.
• Legal Strategy: Counsel must diarise pronouncement dates and immediately apply for certified copies; “awaiting upload” is no longer a safe harbour.
• IBC Ecosystem: By cutting down dilatory appeals, the judgment furthers the IBC objective of speed and finality, potentially improving recovery rates and market confidence.
• Cross-Pollination: Although delivered in the context of IBC, the reasoning is likely to influence other special statutes that prescribe tight timelines (e.g., GST, Arbitration, SEBI).

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Pronouncement vs. Uploading

“Pronouncement” is the oral delivery of the decision in open court. “Uploading” is the later administrative act of placing the signed order on the tribunal’s website. Limitation starts from pronouncement, unless the order is reserved and published only on upload.

Certified Copy

An officially authenticated copy issued by the court registry, bearing the seal and serving as proof of the exact contents of the original order.

Condonable Delay (30 + 15 Rule)

Under Section 61(2) IBC, appeals must be filed within 30 days. The NCLAT can condone delay up to an additional 15 days (total 45) on “sufficient cause”. Delay beyond 45 days is irremediable.

Rule 22(2) vs. Rules 14 & 15

Rule 22(2) is a mandatory filing requirement. Rules 14 & 15 give NCLAT discretion to relax or extend timelines “in the interest of substantial justice”, but cannot override a mandatory provision unless exceptional circumstances are proved and relief sought in time.

“Time Requisite” under Section 12(2) Limitation Act

The period the court registry legitimately takes to prepare and deliver the certified copy after the litigant applies for it. This period is excluded from computing limitation.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashdan carries a loud and clear message: procedure is the handmaiden of justice, but in the IBC regime, diligence is non-negotiable. By invalidating the NCLAT’s merits decision solely on procedural non-compliance, the Court not only reinforces the textual command of Section 61(2) and Rule 22(2) but also aligns with the legislative intent of swift insolvency resolution. For practitioners and parties, the judgment is a stark reminder that:

1. The moment an order is pronounced, the limitation clock ticks.
2. An immediate application for a certified copy is imperative to preserve exclusion under Section 12(2) Limitation Act.
3. Any exemption or extension under NCLAT Rules must be sought proactively and within the statutory outer limit.

Overall, Ashdan v. DSK transforms what some viewed as “mere technicalities” into essential jurisdictional checkpoints, thereby fortifying the efficiency-centric ethos of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.