Delay Beyond 45 Days in IBC Appeals Barred by Statute

In a recent ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors., (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1042), dated May 7, 2025, set aside an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that had permitted the filing of an appeal beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Court held that such condonation of delay was beyond the jurisdiction of the NCLAT and contrary to the express mandate of the statute.

The matter arose from the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Rohit Ferro-Tech Limited, wherein Tata Steel Ltd., the appellant, was the successful resolution applicant. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata, approved the resolution plan on April 7, 2022, under Section 31 of the IBC. Raj Kumar Banerjee, an erstwhile minority shareholder of the corporate debtor, filed an appeal before the NCLAT under Section 61(1) of the IBC. This appeal was filed online on May 23, 2022, and physically on May 24, 2022, 46 and 47 days, respectively, after the NCLT’s order. An application for condonation of a fifteen-day delay was submitted alongside. The NCLAT, by its order dated December 14, 2022, allowed the application and registered the appeal. Tata Steel Ltd. challenged this order, allowing the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation and not maintainable under the IBC.

The Supreme Court, in interpreting Section 61(2) of the IBC, emphasized that an appeal must be filed within thirty days from the date of pronouncement of the NCLT order, with a maximum discretionary extension of 15 days upon showing sufficient cause, allowing the maximum period of filing to be 45 days.

The Court clarified that this total period of forty-five days is a prescribed limit and that no further extension is permissible under law. The Court further held that the thirty-day limitation period began on April 7, 2022, and expired on May 7, 2022, a working Saturday, rendering Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for filings on the next working day if the last day falls on a holiday, inapplicable. As the fifteen-day condonable period was to end on May 22, 2022, the appeal filed on May 23, 2022, and May 24, 2022, was squarely barred by limitation.

The Court held that Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies only to the “prescribed period” and not to any additional condonable time allowed by statute. Citing precedents such as Assam Urban Water Supply v. Subhash Projects, [(2012) 2 SCC 624], dated January 19, 2012, the court emphasized strict adherence to statutory time limits. It also relied on V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd., [(2022) 2 SCC 244], reaffirming that the limitation period begins from the date of pronouncement, not from the date of knowledge or receipt of a certified copy.

With respect to the powers of the NCLAT, the Court reiterated that the appellate tribunal is a creature of statute and cannot assume equitable or inherent jurisdiction to override the explicit temporal limits set by the legislature. Relying on precedents such as Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. [(2021) 10 SCC 401], dated March 10, 2021, the Court held that the statutory scheme of the IBC is built on timeliness and finality, and the tribunal has no discretion to condone delay beyond the fifteen days permitted by the proviso to Section 61(2) of the IBC.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the NCLAT had acted without jurisdiction in entertaining an appeal filed after the statutory outer limit and that such condonation undermines the purpose and structure of the IBC.

The Court’s decision is a clear reaffirmation that the strict timelines under the IBC are to be observed with rigour and cannot be diluted by procedural or equitable considerations.