Supreme Court Rules Free Certified Copy Of NCLT Order Issued By Registry Can Be Used To File Appeals With NCLAT

Supreme Court Rules Free Certified Copy Of NCLT Order Issued By Registry Can Be Used To File Appeals With NCLAT

The Supreme Court set aside an order by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that denied the condonation of a three-day delay in filing an appeal, citing the submission of a 'free copy' of the impugned order.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra, clarified that there is no distinction between a free certified copy of the order and a certified copy obtained upon payment under Rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Rules 2016. The Court emphasized that both types of certified copies are considered equivalent for the purposes of Rule 50.

The case involved an application for the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016, filed by the State Bank of India against India Power Corporation. The NCLT dismissed the application, leading to the appeal before the NCLAT, which was filed with a delay of three days beyond the thirty-day period specified under Section 61 of the IBC.

The division bench faced differing opinions on the matter of condoning the delay. The judicial member argued that the certified copy provided by the State Bank of India was a "free of cost copy," and, without an application for a certified copy, the three-day delay could not be condoned. Conversely, the technical member contended that there should be no differentiation between a certified copy obtained by payment and a free copy.

In this instance, the third judge determined that a free copy under Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules does not qualify as a certified copy as defined under Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules 2016.

The Supreme Court scrutinized Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules in relation to Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules. The Court noted that Rule 22(2) stipulates that every appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order, while Rule 50 permits the registry to provide a certified copy free of charge, in addition to copies available for a fee.

The Court observed, "Rule 50 provides for a certified copy, free of cost, and a certified copy made available upon payment. It is crucial to understand that both the free copy and the copy available through an application are treated as 'certified copies' under the Rule." However, it added, "A litigant who does not apply for a certified copy cannot claim they were waiting for a free copy to avoid the limitation bar."

The Court distinguished the present facts from those in the case of V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd., where the Court found that the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period due to the delayed issuance of the certified copy.

In the current case, a free copy was provided, and the appeal was subsequently filed, resulting in a three-day delay, which fell within the condonable period of 30 days plus an additional 15 days.

CJI Chandrachud noted, "Sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay of three days." He ultimately ruled in favor of the appeal, citing the provisions of NCLT Rule 50, and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication by the NCLAT. "We believe that the appeal was filed within the condonable period, which should have been condoned. Therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the NCLAT. The three-day delay in filing shall be condoned, and the appeal shall be restored to the NCLAT's file."