Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association versus M Lalitha and another
An appeal under section 61 of the IBC that is filed and refiled without a certified copy of the NCLT order, and without any application for exemption from filing it, is incurably defective, and delay in refiling cannot be condoned as a matter solely between the registry and the appellant.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-10-06
The mother of a suspended director challenged the approval of a resolution plan by the NCLT, filing her appeal on the last condonable day, refiling it 150 days late and without a certified copy of the order, which she applied for only after refiling. The Supreme Court held that the filing and refiling were incurably tainted and that the NCLAT had been wrong to condone the delay.
What happened
The NCLT, Kochi Bench, approved the resolution plan of Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association by order of 14 August 2024. M Lalitha, the mother of a suspended director of the corporate debtor, who also claimed to be a financial creditor, e-filed Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 252 of 2025 on 28 September 2024, the last day of the condonable period (30 days, expiring on 13 September 2024, plus 15). The NCLAT Registry intimated defects on 4 October 2024; the appeal was refiled only on 10 March 2025, although rule 26(2) allows seven days, and still had defects, including that a certified copy of the order of 14 August 2024 had not been filed. By the NCLAT's order of 10 November 2025, delay of 15 days in filing, within the permissible 45 days, and of 150 days in refiling, on costs of ₹50,000, was condoned; the NCLAT said the delay in refiling was a matter exclusively between it and the appellant. The Supreme Court called for the Registry's scrutiny report of 27 May 2025.
Questions before the court
- Can the NCLAT condone delay in an appeal that was filed and refiled without a certified copy of the impugned NCLT order or an application for exemption?
Why the court ruled this way
The Court said that delay in refiling is ordinarily not tested by the same strict standards as delay in filing, but here the appeal refiled was defective beyond redemption because it lacked a certified copy of the order (paragraph 6). The respondent had applied for the certified copy only on 21 April 2025, long after the refiling of 10 March 2025, and it was prepared on 24 April 2025 but not collected until 12 June 2025 (paragraph 8). She had not even applied for exemption from filing the certified copy at the time of filing or refiling, the minimum requirement, which the NCLAT could have considered under rules 14 and 15 of its rules to allow a later filing (paragraph 10). The filing and refiling were therefore incurably tainted and ought to have been rejected at the threshold (paragraph 11).
Controlling point
The appeal without a certified copy or an application for exemption was incurably defective and should have been rejected at the threshold, so the condonation of delay could not stand.
Order and next steps
The NCLAT's order dated 10 November 2025 in IA Nos. 1164 and 1165 in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 252 of 2025 was set aside. The appeals were allowed in those terms and parties bear their own costs.
Practical implications
A person appealing an NCLT order under the IBC should file a certified copy with the appeal, or apply for exemption under rules 14 and 15 on filing, and cure defects within the seven days allowed; relying on the NCLAT to condone delay in refiling is risky.
Limits of this ruling
- The Court dealt with the appeal's institution and the condonation order; it did not decide the challenge to the resolution plan itself.
Law and judgment source
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, section 61
- National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, rules 14, 15 and 26(2)
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established.
Source checked: 2026-10-06 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 1–11 · Later case history: not verified. Verify appeals, stays and subsequent orders before reliance.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.