CA RAMCHANDRA DALLARAM CHOUDHARY v. ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
An appeal under section 62 of the IBC can be filed within 45 days, extendable by at most 15 days on sufficient cause, and defects can be cured only within 28 days of notification under the Supreme Court Rules; a litigant cannot save limitation by filing a defective appeal and re-filing it later, since the right of appeal stands extinguished once those windows close.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-10-11
CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary, liquidator of a corporate debtor, appealed to the Supreme Court seven days late and, after the Registry marked the appeal defective, re-filed it 82 days later. The Court held there was no power to condone the re-filing delay beyond 28 days and dismissed the appeal.
What happened
The appeal under section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was presented on 29 January 2026, beyond the 45 days in section 62(1) but within the 15-day grace period in section 62(2), a delay of seven days, with an application for condonation. The Office marked the appeal defective, and after the defects were cured the appeal was re-filed after a further delay of 82 days, with a separate application for condonation of re-filing delay. The appellant, as a neutral officer acting under the Court's aegis for the benefit of all stakeholders, urged liberal treatment and relied on a coordinate Bench decision between the same parties in CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure & Developers (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1406, where re-filing delay in an NCLAT appeal under section 61 was condoned. The Court decided the appeal on limitation and made no comment on the correctness of the NCLAT order.
Questions before the court
- Can delay in re-filing a defective section 62 appeal beyond 28 days be condoned, so as to save limitation?
Why the court ruled this way
The scheme of limitation under the IBC is strict and time-bound; condonation of delay is alien to the framework beyond the period expressly provided, so section 62 allows 45 days with a further 15 days only on sufficient cause, an outer limit of 60 days beyond which the Court's jurisdiction to condone ceases, as stressed in Mobilox Innovations v. Kirusa Software and other decisions (paragraphs 4 and 5). Under Order VIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, a litigant has 28 days to cure defects, after which re-filing with an application to condone delay is discretionary (paragraph 10). To allow a litigant to circumvent the rigours of limitation by filing a defective appeal as a device and curing the defects at leisure would defeat the object of the IBC, and the answer to whether the Court can countenance such a practice is a resounding no (paragraph 16). No litigant can seek condonation of re-filing delay beyond 28 days after lodging a defective appeal; once the 60-day IBC window and the 28-day re-filing window close, the right to appeal stands extinguished (paragraph 17). Where the IBC and the Supreme Court Rules clash, the IBC prevails, since section 62 is a complete code (paragraph 18). On the merits of the explanations, sufficient cause was not shown in any case (paragraph 27).
Controlling point
The defective appeal was filed beyond the maximum period condonable under the IBC and was barred.
Order and next steps
The defective appeal was dismissed as time-barred, and the connected applications were also dismissed.
Practical implications
A party appealing to the Supreme Court under section 62 should file a complete appeal within 45 days, or with a short delay within 60 days, and cure any defect notified by the Registry within 28 days.
Limits of this ruling
- The Court did not examine the correctness of the NCLAT order; the decision concerns appeals under section 62 of the IBC and not other statutes where the rules on condonation differ.
Law and judgment source
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, section 62
- Supreme Court Rules, Order VIII Rule 6
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: 2026-10-11 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 1–29 · 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.