Period between an order's pronouncement and issuance of its certified copy is excluded from the limitation period for appeal to NCLAT: Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while remanding an appeal back to the NCLAT, set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and held that the time frame between the pronouncement of the order and the issuance of the certified copy by the adjudicating authority is excluded from the limitation period for filing an appeal with the NCLAT under Section 61(2) of the IBC.

The appellant had filed a petition under Section 7 of the IBC against APG Logistics Private Limited which was dismissed by the NCLT. The appellant requested a certified copy of the NCLT order on 2-9-2022, received it on 15-9-2022, and filed an appeal with the NCLAT on 10-10-2022. The appellant also requested condonation for a five-day delay, with the physical appeal submitted on 31-10-2022. The NCLAT dismissed the appeal on 9-1-2023, ruling it was time-barred, as it was filed 46 days after the NCLT order, exceeding the 30-day limit plus a 15-day condonable delay. The NCLAT held that waiting for the certified copy was not required. Consequently, the appellant, aggrieved by this decision, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while hearing the appeal found NCLAT's judgment to be erroneous, noting that it incorrectly calculated the limitation period. The Hon’ble Court observed that Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, and Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, required exclusion of the pronouncement date. Thus, the appeal filed on 10-10-2022 was within the 45-day limit set by Section 61 of the IBC when excluding the pronouncement date (26-8-2022).

The Hon’ble Apex Court also noted the NCLAT’s SOP and clarification on e-filing, which allowed the appeal period to be reckoned from the date of e-filing, with physical filing required within seven days. Since the appellant requested the certified copy within the 30-day period and received it on 15-9-2022, the period from 5-9-2022 to 15-9-2022 should have been excluded. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the NCLAT to reconsider the matter on its merits.

Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics (P) Ltd. 

2023 SCC OnLine SC 976.