The Supreme Court has held that the time to appeal an NCLAT order under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) starts when the tribunal pronounces its order, not when a certified copy is collected. The ruling, in Commissioner of Central Tax v. Sreenivasa Rao Ravinuthala, is dated 14 October 2026 and was reported by SCC Online on 17 October. The bench was Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria, and Justice Bhatti wrote the judgment.
The facts
The tax department appealed against an NCLAT judgment of 2 August 2023, which had upheld a resolution plan approved by the NCLT, Hyderabad, on 13 August 2021. The appeal was filed on 21 November 2023.
What the Court held
Only the time actually needed to obtain a certified copy can be excluded, under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Time lost before the party applies for the copy cannot be excluded. The Court said treating the clock as paused until a copy is physically collected would make the period fluctuating and indefinite. It also pointed to Rule 91 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, under which pronouncement in open court, or the notified cause-list date, counts as notice.
How the days were counted
Section 62 allows 45 days, which the Court can extend by up to 15 days for sufficient cause, so the outer limit is 60 days. The copy was applied for on 6 September 2023, 35 days after the order. The 35 days it then took the Registry, until 11 October 2023, were excluded. The appeal came 41 days after the copy was received. That makes 35 plus 41, or 76 days, which is 16 more than the ceiling. The appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, with no order on costs.
Key numbers
- Days before applying for copy: 35 (Not excluded)
- Days after receiving copy: 41 (Appeal filed 21 November 2023)
- Days counted: 76 (16 above the ceiling)
- Outer limit: 60 days (45 plus up to 15)
What boards and CFOs should note
Three points stand out. First, the clock for an NCLAT appeal starts on the day of the order. Second, delay in applying for the certified copy counts against the appellant. Third, the 60-day ceiling cannot be stretched by treating exclusion of time as condonation of delay.
Source: SCC Online, 17 October 2026. This is a summary of a news report, published as general information. It is not legal, tax or investment advice.
This article is journalism and commentary. It is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security, and it is not professional advice. Read the full disclaimer.
