--- title: "Supreme Court: Limitation for Appeals Under Section 62 of the IBC Runs from Pronouncement of the Order; Delay in Applying for a Certified Copy Is Not Excludable" date: 2026-10-28 author: "King Stubb & Kasiva" url: https://ksandk.com/newsletter/section-62-ibc-appeal-limitation-certified-copy/ --- # Supreme Court: Limitation for Appeals Under Section 62 of the IBC Runs from Pronouncement of the Order; Delay in Applying for a Certified Copy Is Not Excludable Posted On - 28 October, 2026 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva ## **Summary:** The Supreme Court held that an appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) must be filed within the prescribed period of 45 days, extendable by a maximum of 15 days upon sufficient cause being shown. The Court clarified that the time spent in obtaining a certified copy may be excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, but any delay in applying for the certified copy cannot be excluded. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, reiterating that the statutory outer limit of 60 days cannot be extended. ## **Facts:** - M/s Samyu Glass Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, was engaged in manufacturing glass containers and had been subjected to multiple excise recovery proceedings initiated by the Central Excise and Service Tax Department between 2013 and 2017. - Following the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, the Appellant submitted a claim of ₹22,60,32,948/- towards excise arrears. The Resolution Professional subsequently approached the Revenue under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, proposing settlement of the outstanding dues. - On August 13, 2021, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad, approved the Resolution Plan, under which ₹1,34,657/- was provided towards the excise arrears payable to the Appellant. - Aggrieved by the approval of the Resolution Plan, the Appellant challenged the NCLT’s decision before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai. By its judgment dated August 2, 2023, the NCLAT upheld the approval of the Resolution Plan. - The Appellant applied for a certified copy of the NCLAT judgment on September 6, 2023, and received the same on October 11, 2023. Thereafter, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 62 of the IBC on November 21, 2023. - The Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was barred by limitation, contending that the statutory period of 45 days, together with the maximum condonable period of 15 days, had expired. They argued that even after excluding the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy, the appeal had been filed beyond the permissible period. - The Appellant contended that limitation under Section 62(1) of the IBC commenced from the date of receipt of the impugned order and, therefore, the appeal filed within 41 days of receiving the certified copy was within time. ## **Issues:** - Whether limitation for filing an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC commences from the date of pronouncement of the NCLAT order or from the date on which the appellant receives the certified copy. - Whether the time taken to apply for and obtain a certified copy can be excluded while computing the limitation period, and whether the delay in applying for the certified copy can be excluded under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. - Whether the limitation period for an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC can be extended beyond the statutory outer limit of 60 days. ## **Judgement:** - **Strict Limitation Framework under the IBC:** The Court reiterated that the IBC constitutes a self-contained statutory framework prescribing strict timelines for appeals. Under Section 62, an appeal to the Supreme Court must be filed within 45 days, with a further period of up to 15 days available for condonation of delay upon sufficient cause being demonstrated. The absolute outer limit is, therefore, 60 days. - **Limitation Commences from Pronouncement of the Order:** The Court held that the limitation period commences from the date on which the NCLAT pronounces its order. It relied upon Rule 91 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, which provides that pronouncement of the operative portion of an order in open court constitutes valid pronouncement. The expression “date of receipt of such order” under Section 62(1) cannot be interpreted to mean the date on which a litigant chooses to obtain or collect a certified copy. - **Exclusion of Time under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act:** The Court clarified the distinction between exclusion of time spent obtaining a certified copy and condonation of delay. While Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act permits exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order, the Explanation to Section 12 expressly excludes from such computation any period taken by the Court or Tribunal to prepare the order before the application for a copy is made. Accordingly, the period of inaction before applying for the certified copy remains part of the limitation period. - **Application of the Limitation Principles to the Present Case:** The NCLAT pronounced the impugned order on August 2, 2023. The Appellant applied for a certified copy only on September 6, 2023, after 35 days had elapsed. The period between September 6, 2023, and October 11, 2023, when the certified copy was received, was excluded as time requisite for obtaining the copy. Upon receipt, the Appellant had only 10 days remaining within the initial 45-day limitation period and a further condonable period of 15 days. However, the appeal was filed on November 21, 2023, 41 days after receipt of the certified copy. - **Absolute Outer Limit of 60 Days:** The Court calculated the actionable period as 35 days before applying for the certified copy and 41 days after receiving it, aggregating to 76 days. Even after excluding the period spent obtaining the certified copy, the appeal was filed 16 days beyond the maximum permissible period. The Court held that accepting the Appellant’s interpretation would render the limitation period indefinite and undermine the strict timelines prescribed under the IBC. - **Appeal Dismissed as Time-Barred:** The Supreme Court sustained the preliminary objection and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, holding that the statutory outer limit for condonation of delay under Section 62 of the IBC could not be extended. ## **Analysis:** This judgment reinforces the strict and time-bound nature of the appellate framework under the IBC and clarifies the manner in which limitation is computed for appeals filed before the Supreme Court under Section 62. It underscores that litigants must exercise due diligence in applying for certified copies and cannot exclude periods of inaction preceding such applications. The ruling also distinguishes the exclusion of time requisite for obtaining a certified copy under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act from condonation of delay under the IBC. By reaffirming the absolute outer limit of 60 days, the judgment emphasises that procedural requirements governing limitation must be complied with strictly and that the statutory timelines cannot be circumvented by relying upon the date of actual receipt of a certified copy. *Last Updated on 28 October, 2026* Get King Stubb & Kasiva’s legal updates in your Google feed[![Add King Stubb & Kasiva as a preferred source on Google](https://ksandk.com/wp-content/uploads/google_preferred_source_badge_light_en@2x.png)](https://www.google.com/preferences/source?q=https://ksandk.com/) --- ## 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/)