--- title: "SC: Defective IBC Appeals Cannot Be Used To Circumvent Strict Statutory Limitation" date: 2026-06-29 author: "King Stubb & Kasiva" url: https://ksandk.com/newsletter/ibc-limitation-period-section-62/ --- # SC: Defective IBC Appeals Cannot Be Used To Circumvent Strict Statutory Limitation Posted On - 29 June, 2026 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva **BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA** *CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd.* — Civil Appeal arising out of D. No. 5988 of 2026. Judgment Dated: **June 03, 2026**. ## Summary The Supreme Court reiterated the strict and time-bound nature of the **limitation framework** under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court considered whether a substantial delay in re-filing a defective appeal under Section 62 of the IBC could be condoned and emphasised that procedural mechanisms relating to re-filing cannot be permitted to dilute statutory timelines. Reaffirming that expedition and finality are central to the insolvency regime, the Court stressed that litigants cannot use defective filings and delayed curing of defects as a means to indirectly extend **limitation periods** prescribed under the Code. ## Facts of the Case - The Appellant filed an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC against an order of the NCLAT. - The appeal was initially filed with a delay of seven days but remained within the statutorily condonable period. - The Registry marked the appeal as defective. - The defects were cured and the appeal was re-filed after a further delay of eighty-two days. - Applications were filed seeking condonation of both the filing delay and the re-filing delay. - The Court examined the interaction between the limitation provisions under the IBC and the Supreme Court Rules governing re-filing. ## Issues Before the Court - Whether delay in re-filing a defective appeal can be condoned where doing so would undermine the limitation regime under Section 62 of the IBC. - Whether procedural provisions relating to re-filing can effectively extend statutory timelines prescribed by the IBC. ## Judgment #### Time-Bound Resolution as the Cornerstone of the IBC The Court reiterated that **strict adherence to statutory timelines** is essential to the functioning of the insolvency framework and cannot be diluted through procedural devices. #### Strict Limitation Regime Under Section 62 Appeals under Section 62 must be filed within **forty-five days**, with only a limited grace period of fifteen additional days available upon sufficient cause being shown. #### Statutorily Restricted Power to Condone Delay Once the **outer limitation period** contemplated by Section 62 expires, the Court’s jurisdiction to condone delay becomes extremely limited. #### Re-Filing Provisions Cannot Override Legislative Intent The Court held that procedural provisions contained in the **Supreme Court Rules** must be interpreted consistently with the objectives of the IBC and cannot be used to indirectly extend limitation periods. #### Defective Filings Cannot Extend Time Litigants cannot preserve limitation merely by filing a **defective appeal** and curing defects at a substantially later stage. #### Filing vs. Re-Filing Distinction Within the IBC Framework While re-filing delays may ordinarily be viewed more liberally, such an approach cannot be adopted where it undermines the strict statutory scheme governing insolvency appeals. #### Certainty and Expedition Must Prevail The Court emphasised that insolvency proceedings affect multiple stakeholders and require prompt resolution. Delays frustrate the legislative purpose of the Code. #### IBC Timelines Must Be Interpreted Strictly Consistent with earlier precedent, the Court reaffirmed that limitation provisions under the IBC must be enforced rigorously to preserve finality and efficiency in insolvency proceedings. ## Analysis This decision is another addition to the Supreme Court’s growing body of jurisprudence emphasising **strict compliance with limitation periods** under the IBC. The ruling makes it clear that procedural defects and delayed re-filings cannot be employed as devices to bypass statutory timelines. The judgment reinforces the legislative objective of ensuring **speedy insolvency resolution** and preserving certainty within the insolvency framework. *Last Updated on 29 June, 2026* --- ## Office Locations - [New Delhi](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-delhi/) (HQ): +91-11-41318190 | info@ksandk.com - [Mumbai](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-mumbai/): 3 offices (Nariman Point, Lower Parel, Andheri) | mumbai@ksandk.com - [Bangalore](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-bangalore/): bangalore@ksandk.com - [Chennai](https://ksandk.com/locations/chennai/): chennai@ksandk.com - [Hyderabad](https://ksandk.com/locations/hyderabad/): hyderabad@ksandk.com - [Pune](https://ksandk.com/locations/pune/): pune@ksandk.com - [Kochi](https://ksandk.com/locations/kochi/): kochi@ksandk.com ## Contact - [Contact Page](https://ksandk.com/contact-us/) - General: info@ksandk.com | +91-11-41318190 - WhatsApp: +91-7428567444 - [Privacy Statement](https://ksandk.com/privacy-statement/) - [Terms of Use](https://ksandk.com/terms-of-use/)