Section 62 IBC Appeals Must Be Defect-Free Within Limitation: No Condonation of Re-Filing Delay Beyond 28 Days

Introduction

In CA RAMCHANDRA DALLARAM CHOUDHARY v. ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, the Supreme Court of India considered an appeal filed by the liquidator of a corporate debtor under liquidation under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against an order of the NCLAT dated 08 December 2025.

The central issue was not the merits of the NCLAT’s decision, but whether the Supreme Court could condone delay in filing and, more importantly, delay in re-filing a defective appeal under Section 62 of the IBC after defects were not cured within the time allowed under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Summary of the Judgment

The appeal was initially filed beyond the prescribed 45-day limitation period but within the further 15-day condonable period under Section 62(2) of the IBC. The Registry reported a delay of 7 days in filing. The appeal was also defective. After defects were notified, the appellant re-filed the appeal with a further delay of 82 days.

The Supreme Court dismissed the defective appeal as time-barred. It held that:

  • Section 62 of the IBC provides a strict limitation period of 45 days for appeals to the Supreme Court.
  • A further period of only 15 days may be condoned on sufficient cause being shown.
  • The outer limit for filing a Section 62 appeal is therefore 60 days.
  • If an appeal is filed defectively, defects must be cured within 28 days under Order VIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
  • No delay in re-filing beyond that 28-day period can be condoned in a Section 62 IBC appeal.

The Court held that once the statutory and procedural windows close, the right to appeal stands extinguished.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd.

The Court relied on this decision to emphasize that strict adherence to timelines is fundamental to the IBC. The quoted passage specifically referred to Section 62 appeals, noting that 45 days are provided for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court, with a grace period not exceeding 15 days. This precedent supported the Court’s conclusion that delay beyond the statutory maximum cannot be condoned.

Kalparaj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited

This case was cited for the broader principle that time-bound resolution is central to the IBC framework. The Court reiterated that the IBC gives primacy to procedural discipline and commercial finality. Although Kalparaj Dharamshi concerned Section 61, its reasoning reinforced the strict approach adopted under Section 62.

National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Dunar Foods Ltd. (Resolution Professional)

This decision was referred to as part of the line of cases holding that condonation of delay beyond the period expressly prescribed by the IBC is impermissible. It strengthened the conclusion that courts cannot enlarge limitation periods where the statute has fixed an outer boundary.

V. Nagarajan v. Sks Ispat & Power Ltd

The judgment invoked this precedent to underline that insolvency proceedings require vigilance from litigants. The IBC does not allow parties to wait indefinitely or rely on relaxed limitation principles inconsistent with its objective of speedy resolution.

Tata Steel Limited v. Raj Kumar Banerjee and Others

This case was cited to reaffirm that IBC timelines are mandatory and that condonation cannot travel beyond the statutory limits. It formed part of the Court’s reasoning that procedural flexibility cannot defeat insolvency finality.

PEC Ltd. v. M/s Phulchand Exports Private Ltd.

In this case, the Supreme Court dismissed a Section 62 IBC appeal where the filing delay exceeded the maximum condonable period. The present Court treated it as a direct authority for the proposition that delay beyond the statutory cap under Section 62 cannot be entertained.

Saturn Ventures and Advisors Pvt. Limited v. S. Gopalakrishnan

This precedent was cited because even a delay of two days in presenting a Section 62 appeal was not condoned. It illustrated the strictness of the Section 62 limitation regime and confirmed that the Court lacks power to condone delay once the statutory maximum has expired.

CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure & Developers (P) Ltd.

The appellant relied heavily on this earlier decision between the same parties, where delay in re-filing an appeal before the NCLAT under Section 61 of the IBC had been condoned. The Supreme Court distinguished that decision on facts. It noted that the earlier order expressly stated that it should not be treated as a precedent. It was based on peculiar circumstances, including lapses attributable to lawyers and their clerks, and the Court’s desire to have the matter decided on merits.

In contrast, the present delay was attributed to an internal oversight in the liquidator’s office. The Court held that a litigant who once received indulgence cannot assume that repeated defaults at successive appellate stages will also be excused.

Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma

This case appeared in the quoted passage from CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure & Developers (P) Ltd.. It represents the general principle that courts may treat lawyer-related lapses more leniently than litigant-related lapses, especially in re-filing matters. However, the Supreme Court held that such general principles cannot override the strict statutory framework of the IBC.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rested on the special nature of the IBC. Unlike ordinary civil or criminal proceedings, insolvency law is designed around strict timelines, expedition, and finality. Therefore, procedural rules must be interpreted consistently with the statutory purpose of the IBC.

The Court held that an appeal under Section 62 must be a proper, defect-free appeal. Filing a defective appeal merely to stop limitation cannot be used as a device to later cure defects at leisure. If such a practice were allowed, the mandatory timelines of the IBC would become ineffective.

The Court harmonised Section 62 of the IBC with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Under the Rules, defects may be cured within 28 days. But in the context of Section 62 IBC appeals, that 28-day period is the final permissible window. Beyond it, the Court held, there is no scope for condoning re-filing delay.

Impact

This judgment establishes a significant procedural rule for insolvency appeals before the Supreme Court: delay in re-filing a defective Section 62 IBC appeal cannot be condoned beyond 28 days after defects are notified.

The decision will have practical consequences for liquidators, resolution professionals, creditors, corporate debtors, and lawyers handling insolvency litigation. Parties must ensure that appeals are filed promptly and in proper form. Defective filing will not preserve rights indefinitely.

The ruling also discourages “serial condonations” across appellate stages and reinforces the IBC’s objective of avoiding delay in insolvency proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Section 62 IBC: This provision allows an appeal to the Supreme Court from an NCLAT order, but only on a substantial question of law.
  • Condonation of delay: This means the court excuses late filing if sufficient cause is shown. Under Section 62, this power exists only for 15 days after the initial 45-day period.
  • Re-filing delay: If a filing has defects, the Registry returns or marks it defective. The time taken to correct and re-submit it is re-filing time.
  • Defective appeal: An appeal that is incomplete or does not comply with filing requirements. The Court held that such an appeal cannot be treated as fully instituted for IBC limitation purposes.
  • Outer limit: The final deadline beyond which the Court has no power to extend time.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case strengthens the discipline of limitation under the IBC. It clarifies that Section 62 appeals must comply not only with the 45-day filing period and 15-day condonable extension, but also with the 28-day period for curing defects under the Supreme Court Rules.

The key takeaway is clear: in IBC appeals, procedural delay is not a mere technicality. Once the statutory and permissible procedural windows close, the right to appeal is extinguished. The judgment therefore reinforces speed, certainty, and finality as core values of insolvency law.