In this instance, the Apex Court ruled that the statute of limitations for appealing an NCLT ruling under Section 61 of the IBC would begin on the date the order was announced in open court rather than the date it was uploaded.
Because they had applied for and not received the certified copy of the NCLT order, the appellant had filed an appeal with the NCLAT without including it. Because the appeal was time-barred, NCLAT dismissed it. The appellant went to the Supreme Court to contest the NCLAT ruling. The appellant stated that the clock would start ticking once a free copy was given. The Court, however, rejected the argument, emphasising that an appeal is required to be filed right away without waiting for a free copy that may not arrive for an unlimited period of time if the aggrieved party deems it essential and reasonable.
In the instant case titled V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd., the issue raised for clarification before the Supreme Court was:
Is acquisition of a certified copy required for an NCLAT appeal against a decision made under the IBC?
With regard to this issue, the Supreme Court stated that the replies must be based on a consistent reading of the governing legal system. The IBC has precedence over other codes and is a code in and of itself. The Court further stated that, in contrast to Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, Sections 61(1) and 61(2) of the IBC purposefully exclude the requirement that the limitation be computed from when the "order is made available to the aggrieved party."
The Court determined that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT rules makes the attachment of a certified copy of the order and appeal obligatory. The Court made it plain that the party must file their appeal within thirty days, and that this deadline may be extended for a period of up to fifteen days, but no longer, if they can demonstrate good cause. The Supreme Court ruled that the procedural norms cannot be twisted to defeat a law's substantial goal of improving a country's economic well-being.
The Court categorically stated that,
“It is not open to a person aggrieved by an order under the IBC to await the receipt of a free certified copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies Act 2013 read with Rule 50 of the NCLT and prevent limitation from running. Accepting such construction will upset the timely framework of the IBC".
The appellant should have been diligent in securing a certified copy of the order in order to submit an appeal, the court found. The NCLAT was correct to reject his appeal since it was time-barred.