NCLAT Clarifies Certified Copy Requirement for Filing Appeal Under Section 61 of IBC, 2016. The court held that an uncertified copy can be filed, but limitation runs from receipt of certified copy.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: CHENNAI
  • 89
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

This judgment arises from a reference made to a single member bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai due to a dissenting opinion among two members regarding the interpretation of 'certified copy' for the purpose of filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The appeal in question, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 53 of 2024, was filed by State Bank of India against India Power Corporation Ltd., challenging an order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Special Bench – I, Hyderabad in CP (IB) No. 205/7/HDB/2021. The core legal issue was whether a certified copy of the impugned order is mandatory for filing an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC, and how the limitation period should be computed. The appellant argued that an uncertified copy should suffice for filing, while the respondent contended that a certified copy is essential. The court, after hearing both sides, held that a certified copy is not mandatory for filing an appeal; an uncertified copy can be filed. However, the limitation period of 30 days under Section 61 of the IBC starts from the date of receipt of the certified copy, not from the date of pronouncement of the order. The court relied on the provisions of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, and previous precedents to arrive at this conclusion. The judgment clarifies the procedural requirement for filing appeals under the IBC and ensures that litigants are not penalized for delays in obtaining certified copies.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Appeal - Certified Copy - Section 61, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The issue pertains to whether a certified copy of the impugned order is mandatory for filing an appeal under Section 61 of IBC, 2016. The court held that a certified copy is not mandatory for filing an appeal; an uncertified copy can be filed, but the limitation period runs from the date of receipt of the certified copy. (Paras 1-27)

B) Limitation - Appeal - Certified Copy - Section 61, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The court considered the computation of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 61 of IBC, 2016. It held that the limitation period of 30 days starts from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order, not from the date of pronouncement. (Paras 1-27)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a certified copy of the impugned order is mandatory for filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and how the limitation period is computed in the absence of a certified copy.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court held that a certified copy is not mandatory for filing an appeal under Section 61 of IBC, 2016; an uncertified copy can be filed. However, the limitation period of 30 days starts from the date of receipt of the certified copy.

Law Points

  • Certified copy requirement
  • Section 61 IBC
  • limitation period
  • appeal filing
  • NCLAT Rules 2016
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (NCLAT) (01) 8

IA No. 158/2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 53 of 2024

0000-00-00

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma

Mr. PH. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Advocate for Appellant; Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Senior Advocate for Respondent

State Bank of India

India Power Corporation Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Reference to answer a question on interpretation of 'certified copy' for filing appeal under Section 61 of IBC, 2016.

Remedy Sought

Clarification on whether certified copy is mandatory for filing appeal and computation of limitation.

Filing Reason

Dissenting opinion among two-member bench on the issue of certified copy requirement.

Previous Decisions

Impugned Order dated 30.10.2023 in CP (IB) No. 205/7/HDB/2021 passed by NCLT, Special Bench – I, Hyderabad.

Issues

Whether a certified copy of the impugned order is mandatory for filing an appeal under Section 61 of IBC, 2016? How is the limitation period computed for filing an appeal under Section 61 of IBC, 2016?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that an uncertified copy should suffice for filing appeal. Respondent contended that a certified copy is essential for filing appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

For the purpose of filing an appeal under Section 61 of IBC, 2016, a certified copy of the impugned order is not mandatory; an uncertified copy can be filed. The limitation period of 30 days commences from the date of receipt of the certified copy.

Judgment Excerpts

This Company Appeal has been placed before me in response to a question referred to be answered, because of the dissenting opinion of the Bench of Two Members on an issue, as to how the aspect pertaining to the ``Certified Copy’’, could be construed for the purposes of filing of an Appeal, under Section 61 of I & B Code, 2016.

Procedural History

The Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 53/2024 was filed by State Bank of India against India Power Corporation Ltd. challenging the order dated 30.10.2023 of NCLT, Hyderabad. A two-member bench had a dissenting opinion on the certified copy issue, leading to a reference to a single member bench by the Hon'ble Chairperson.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 61
  • Companies Act, 2013: Section 419(j), Section 424
  • NCLAT Rules, 2016: Rule 11, Rule 31
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Tribunals NCLAT Clarifies Certified Copy Requirement for Filing Appeal Under Section 61 of IBC, 2016. The court held that an uncertified copy can be filed, but limitation runs from receipt of certified copy.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses State's Revision in Public Servant Prosecution for Lack of Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC. Alleged Sexual Harassment by Police Officer in Course of Official Duty Requires Sanction; Proceedings Stopped Under Section 258 Cr...