IBC Appeals to the Supreme Court: The Clock Starts at Pronouncement, Not the Copy

On August 2, 2023, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in Chennai confirmed a resolution plan for a glass manufacturer. The tax department, unhappy with what the plan left for its claim, applied for a certified copy of the order on the 35th day, received it after another 35 days, and filed its appeal in the Supreme Court 41 days after that. On October 14, 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without looking at the merits. It was 16 days beyond the absolute outer limit.

The case, The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax v. Sreenivasa Rao Ravinuthala, 2026 INSC 1121, did not involve homebuyers. But homebuyers in a builder's insolvency are among those who may want to challenge an NCLAT order, for example one confirming a resolution plan. For Bengaluru families caught in a builder insolvency, this ruling sets out exactly when the clock for a Supreme Court appeal starts, and what time does and does not count.

The short answer. Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria held that for an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, limitation starts on the date the NCLAT pronounces its order, not when a party chooses to collect a certified copy. The period is 45 days, extendable by up to 15 days on sufficient cause, an absolute ceiling of 60 days. Only the time actually taken by the registry to prepare a certified copy after it is applied for is excluded; days lost before applying count against you. The trade-off: the rule gives certainty to everyone in the process, including homebuyers who want a plan implemented, but it leaves no room for a party that waits to act.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

It upheld the preliminary objection on limitation and dismissed the civil appeal as time barred. The Court relied on earlier rulings describing the IBC's limitation scheme as strict and time bound. It summarised one of them as holding that under Section 62 the absolute outer limit for filing an appeal is 60 days, the standard 45 days plus a 15 day grace period on sufficient cause, and that beyond this period the Court loses jurisdiction to condone any delay.

The key question was the starting point. Section 62(1), which the judgment quotes, says any person aggrieved by an order of the NCLAT may file an appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law within 45 days from the date of receipt of such order. The appellant argued that receipt meant the day it received the certified copy. The Court rejected that reading.

What was the dispute, and what did each side argue?

The corporate debtor, Samyu Glass Private Limited, made glass containers and stopped manufacturing around November or December 2016, according to the judgment. A bank filed a Section 7 application, insolvency proceedings began, and the Central Excise department filed a claim on November 27, 2019 for Rs 22,60,32,948. On August 13, 2021, the NCLT in Hyderabad approved a resolution plan that provided Rs 1,34,657 towards the excise arrears. The department challenged the plan before the NCLAT in Chennai, which confirmed it on August 2, 2023.

Before the Supreme Court, Respondent No. 2 argued that limitation, including the condonable period, ran from August 3, 2023 and ended on October 1, 2023, the 60th day, and that the appeal was filed on the 111th day. Alternatively, it argued, even excluding the time the copy application was pending, the appeal had to be filed by November 5, 2023. The department argued that Section 62(1) uses the words receipt of such order, unlike Section 61, which refers to the date the order is made available, so time should run from October 11, 2023, when it received the certified copy. The Court accepted the alternative calculation and rejected the department's reading.

Why does the clock start on pronouncement?

The Court gave three reasons. First, the phrase from the date of receipt of the order cannot be read as the date a party chooses to apply for and collect a certified copy; otherwise the limitation period would become fluctuating and indefinite. Second, Section 238-A of the IBC applies the Limitation Act, 1963 to IBC appeals as far as may be, and Section 12(2) of that Act excludes the time requisite for obtaining a copy; if limitation did not already start on pronouncement, that exclusion would be redundant. Third, Rule 91 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 provides that reading the operative portion of the order in open court is deemed to be pronouncement, and that when orders are reserved the date for pronouncement is notified in the cause list, which is valid notice.

The Court also explained that for Section 62 appeals, the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 put an affirmative obligation on the appellant to apply for and produce a certified copy, so a litigant cannot claim to keep limitation suspended while awaiting one.

What time can be excluded?

Only the time requisite for obtaining the copy, which the Court defined as the period between filing the application and the date the certified copy is ready. Under the explanation to Section 12 of the Limitation Act, any inaction before applying for the copy cannot be excluded and is deducted from the statutory period. In this case, the 35 days before the application counted, the 35 days the application was pending did not, and the 41 days after receiving the copy counted again.

Doing the arithmetic the Court did: after receiving the copy on October 11, 2023, the appellant had 10 days left of the initial 45 day window, expiring on October 21, 2023, and a further 15 discretionary days, expiring on November 5, 2023. It filed on November 21.

Why does this matter to Bengaluru homebuyers in a builder insolvency?

Because homebuyers can be on either side of a time limit. If an NCLAT order goes against homebuyers, for instance on a resolution plan, any further appeal to the Supreme Court runs on this clock from the day of pronouncement. If the order favours homebuyers, a strict limit means the other side cannot keep the matter open indefinitely by delaying a certified copy.

PropNewz has covered other homebuyer deadlines in builder insolvencies, including the claim filing deadline and the role of the homebuyers' representative in liquidation. This ruling adds the appeal stage to that timeline.

Two features of Section 62(1), as quoted in the judgment, are worth noting. The appeal is open to any person aggrieved by an order of the NCLAT, and it lies only on a question of law arising out of that order. So a homebuyer group thinking of going to the Supreme Court needs both a legal question and a filing within time. The judgment also records the respondent's argument that unless an appeal is presented within limitation, the Court ought not to examine the merits, and that is exactly how this appeal ended: dismissed on limitation, with the merits never reached.

What should homebuyers and their associations do after an NCLAT hearing?

Treat the pronouncement date as day one. If orders are reserved, watch the cause list for the date of pronouncement, since the NCLAT Rules treat that listing as valid notice. Apply for the certified copy immediately, because every day before you apply counts. If your association has an authorised representative or lawyer, agree in advance who will track the date and file.

1. Watch the NCLAT cause list for the pronouncement date.
2. Record the pronouncement date as day one of limitation.
3. Apply for a certified copy the same day or the next.
4. Note the date the copy is ready and resume counting.
5. Aim to file well within the first 45 days.
6. Treat 60 days as an absolute ceiling, not a target.
7. Agree in advance who in the association files and when.

This ruling follows a pattern. The judgment summarised earlier rulings stating that courts and tribunals have no power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, or inherent powers, to condone delays beyond the outer limits in special statutes, and that the IBC's architecture weaves speed and strict timelines to preserve asset value. It also summarised a ruling that the right to appeal is permanently extinguished once the 60 day window closes and the period for curing defects under the Supreme Court Rules lapses. PropNewz reported a similar approach to a different statute today in our article on the 120 day land acquisition appeal limit.

Frequently asked questions

When does the limitation for a Supreme Court appeal under Section 62 of the IBC start?

On the date the NCLAT pronounces its order, according to the Supreme Court's October 14, 2026 judgment in 2026 INSC 1121. Limitation does not wait until a party chooses to collect a certified copy, because that would make the period fluctuating and indefinite.

How long do I have to appeal an NCLAT order to the Supreme Court?

Forty-five days, extendable by up to 15 more days on sufficient cause, making 60 days in all the absolute outer limit. The Court described this as a ceiling beyond which it loses jurisdiction to condone delay, relying on its earlier rulings.

Is the time spent getting a certified copy excluded?

Only the time between applying for the copy and the date it is ready. Under the explanation to Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any days of inaction before you apply are not excluded and count against the statutory period.

Why should homebuyers care about this IBC ruling?

Homebuyers in a builder's insolvency may want to challenge, or defend, NCLAT orders such as those on resolution plans. The ruling means the appeal clock starts at pronouncement, so associations should track hearing dates and apply for certified copies immediately.

Last updated 2026-10-31. PropNewz Team.