No Condonation Beyond 45 Days: Supreme Court Re-affirms Absolute Time-Bar under Section 61(2) Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code

Introduction

In Tata Steel Ltd v. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors. (2025 INSC 639) the Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark ruling clarifying the outer temporal limit for appeals to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The dispute arose when an erstwhile minority shareholder (Respondent No. 1) sought to challenge the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT) approval of Tata Steel’s resolution plan for Rohit Ferro-Tech Ltd., but filed his appeal after the initial 30-day period as well as the 15-day “grace” period prescribed in the proviso to Section 61(2).

The core question was whether the NCLAT (and, by corollary, any appellate forum) has jurisdiction to condone a delay beyond the combined 45-day window, particularly by invoking Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 when the last day falls on a court holiday or a working Saturday.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court allowed Tata Steel’s appeal and set aside the NCLAT order that had condoned the delay.
• It held that:
  • The limitation for filing an appeal under Section 61(2) IBC starts from the date of pronouncement of the NCLT order (7 April 2022), not from the date on which a party becomes aware of, or receives, disclosure of that order.
  • Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies only to the prescribed period of 30 days, not to the additional 15-day condonable period.
  • The NCLAT is a creature of statute and cannot enlarge the total statutory period of 45 days “even by a single day” on equitable considerations.
• Consequently, the respondent’s appeal, physically filed on 24 May 2022 (the 48^th day), was hopelessly time-barred and liable to be dismissed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

2. Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory Construction of Section 61(2)
   • 30 days = “prescribed period” (non-extendable except via proviso).
   • Additional 15 days = maximum condonable period (only on “sufficient cause”).
   • No wording permits condonation beyond these 15 days; therefore jurisdictionally barred.
2. Interaction with Limitation Act, 1963
   • By virtue of Section 238A IBC, the Limitation Act applies “as far as may be”.
   • Section 4’s benefit is confined to the 30-day prescribed period. Once that lapses, Section 4 cannot resuscitate proceedings filed in the discretionary window.
   • Rule 3 NCLAT Rules mirrors Section 4 and likewise offers no aid after the first 30 days.
3. Determination of Trigger Date
   • The order was pronounced on 7 April 2022 with immediate stock-exchange disclosure the same day.
   • Registry remained open on 7 May 2022 (a working Saturday); therefore Section 4’s holiday saving clause was inapplicable.
4. Absence of Equitable Jurisdiction
   • NCLAT is a statutory tribunal, not a civil court with inherent powers.
   • Equitable considerations (minority shareholder’s difficulties, document unavailability, etc.) cannot override strict legislative timelines.

3. Potential Impact

• Strict Time Discipline: Litigants before NCLT/NCLAT must treat the 30 + 15 day framework as sacrosanct. The slightest over-run is fatal.
• Disclosure Obligations: Resolution professionals and corporate debtors will be pushed to ensure real-time disclosure of tribunal orders, as “date of pronouncement” now clearly governs limitation irrespective of disclosures.
• Registry Practices: Clarifies that working Saturdays count as normal working days for limitation purposes—closing potential loopholes.
• Filtering of Appeals: NCLAT dockets may witness fewer condonation applications, improving turnaround time for insolvency appeals.
• Predictability for Investors and Creditors: Finality of NCLT-approved resolution plans is strengthened; bidders like Tata Steel gain certainty sooner, facilitating faster implementation of revival plans.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Prescribed Period

The original span within which a legal action (appeal, suit, application) must be filed under the limitation statute—in this context, 30 days.

Condonable/Grace Period

An additional period (here, 15 days) that a court or tribunal may allow if “sufficient cause” for delay is shown. It is the outer limit of judicial discretion.

Section 4 Limitation Act

If the last day for filing falls on a day the court is closed (full holiday), the action can be taken on the next working day. It does not extend or enlarge any condonable period.

Section 238A IBC

Introduces applicability of the Limitation Act to insolvency proceedings “as far as may be,” subject to express provisions of the IBC.

Working Saturday

A day on which judges may not sit but the court/tribunal registry remains open; therefore, filings can be made and limitation continues to run.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Tata Steel Ltd v. Raj Kumar Banerjee crystallises a firm, bright-line rule: once 45 days (30 + 15) from pronouncement of an NCLT order elapse, an appeal under Section 61 IBC is dead on arrival. Section 4 of the Limitation Act and allied procedural dispensations cannot resurrect it.

This ruling enhances certainty in the insolvency ecosystem, curtails dilatory tactics, and aligns appellate timelines with the IBC’s foundational objective of speedy resolution. Stakeholders—creditors, resolution applicants, minority shareholders, and professionals—must now adhere meticulously to the statutory clock, for equity will not override express legislative command.