Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M. Lalitha 2026 INSC 479 - NCLAT Rules - Certified Copy Requirement
Practice and Procedure- National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 - Rule 22 - The parties could not automatically dispense with their obligation to apply for and obtain a certified copy for filing an appeal under Rule 22- A person wishing to file an appeal is expected to file an application for the certified copy before the expiry of the limitation period, upon which ‘the requisite time’ for obtaining the certified copy is liable to be excluded while computing limitation. Rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules enabled parties being exempted from compliance with the requirement of the rules and though waiver on the filing of an appeal with a certified copy is often granted, it does not confer an automatic right on the applicant to dispense with compliance and render Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules nugatory - The act of filing an application for a certified copy is not just a technical requirement for computation of limitation but an indication of the diligence of the party in pursuing the litigation in a timely fashion. (Para 7) A diligent litigant is expected to apply for a certified copy of the order sought to be appealed against before the period of limitation runs out and, by doing so, such litigant would be entitled to seek exclusion of the time taken to procure the certified copy for the purpose of limitation. (Para 10)] [Context: The Supreme Court held that the appeal filed by respondent before the NCLAT against approval of the resolution plan was not merely defective but wholly incompetent, because it was filed and refiled without a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order and without even applying for such a copy within the limitation period or seeking exemption]
Case Info
Case details
Case name: Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M. Lalitha and another
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 479
Coram:Justice Sanjay Kumar Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment date: 12 May 2026 (New Delhi)
Caselaws and citations referred
The judgment expressly refers to:
- V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and others, (2022) 2 SCC 244 – on the mandatory obligation to apply for and file a certified copy with appeals under Rule 22 NCLAT Rules, and on diligence in pursuing an appeal and computation of limitation.
- Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and another, (2022) 2 SCC 401 – on the strict timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code being of the essence.
Statutes / rules referred
The Court refers to and applies:
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – particularly Section 61 (appeal to NCLAT), including the proviso to Section 61(2) regarding the 30‑day limitation plus 15 days condonable delay.
- National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 – especially:
- Rule 22(2): every appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order.
- Rule 26(2): period of 7 days for curing defects in filings.
- Rules 14 and 15: power to exempt/relax compliance, including possible exemption for filing certified copies subject to conditions.
Brief summary (three sentences)
The Supreme Court held that the appeal filed by respondent no. 1 before the NCLAT against approval of the resolution plan was not merely defective but wholly incompetent, because it was filed and refiled without a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order and without even applying for such a copy within the limitation period or seeking exemption. Relying on V. Nagarajan, the Court emphasized that applying for and filing a certified copy under Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules is a core requirement that reflects the litigant’s diligence, and that the strict timelines of the IBC, as underscored in Ebix Singapore, must be enforced. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT’s order condoning delays in filing and refiling, and held that the appeal ought to have been rejected at the threshold.