NCLAT Appeal Limitation: The 45-Day Clock, the Certified Copy, and What Can Actually Be Challenged

More appeals to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal fail on limitation than on the merits. NCLAT appeal limitation is unforgiving by design: there are two different clocks depending on which statute the order came from, the clock usually starts on pronouncement rather than on receipt, and — as the Supreme Court confirmed in May 2026 — an appeal filed in time but without a certified copy of the impugned order may be no appeal at all.

NCLAT Appeal Limitation: Two Clocks, One Tribunal

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) hears appeals under both the Companies Act, 2013 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). However, the NCLAT appeal limitation period differs under the two statutes. Section 61(1) of the IBC begins with a non-obstante clause — “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act, 2013”. Accordingly, appeals against orders of the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC are governed by the limitation periods prescribed under the IBC rather than those under Section 421 of the Companies Act.

Section 433 of the Companies Act applies the Limitation Act 1963 to proceedings before both tribunals, but only “as far as may be” — and that qualification does the work discussed below.

When Does the Limitation Period for an NCLAT Appeal Begin?

The starting point of limitation is often the decisive issue in NCLAT appeal disputes.

Under the IBC, on pronouncement. In V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd, (2022) 2 SCC 244, a three-judge Bench held that sections 61(1) and (2) “consciously omit the requirement of limitation being computed from when the ‘order is made available to the aggrieved party’, in contradistinction to Section 421(3) of the Companies Act”. The appellant, who was present at the pronouncement and relied instead on the date the order was uploaded, was out of time.

Under the Companies Act, when a copy is made available. Section 421(3) says so in terms. In Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd (Supreme Court, 18.09.2020), the Court accepted that a party who chooses not to apply for a copy, and simply awaits the free certified copy the registry must send under section 420(3) read with Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, “would be perfectly justified in falling back on Section 421(3)”. But those appellants had applied for a copy, and time ran from the date their counsel received it.

The exception: where nothing was actually pronounced. In Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd, 2023 INSC 1063, the hearing concluded on one date but no order was passed until nearly a fortnight later. The Court held that “time for filing an appeal would commence only when the order appealed from was uploaded since prior to that date no order was pronounced”, distinguished V. Nagarajan, and directed that “the NCLT must refrain from affixing the date of hearing on the order”.

The Certified Copy Trap

Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules 2016 is short and absolute: “Every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order.”

Two consequences follow.

First, applying for the copy is what unlocks the exclusion of time. Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act excludes the time requisite for obtaining a copy — but the Explanation means that if no application was made, nothing is excluded. In Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt Ltd, 2023 INSC 727, the appellant had applied on the day of pronouncement; the ten days the registry took to supply the copy were excluded, and the NCLAT was held wrong to dismiss the appeal on limitation. V. Nagarajan had put it more bluntly: the act of applying “is not just a technical requirement for computation of limitation but also an indication of the diligence of the aggrieved party”.

Second, filing without the copy can be fatal. In Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M. Lalitha, 2026 INSC 479 (decided 12 May 2026), an appeal was e-filed on the very last day of the condonable period without a certified copy, without any application for one, and without an exemption application. The Supreme Court held that this “practically meant that there was no filing of an appeal in the eyes of law”, and that the appeal “was not a merely defective appeal, wherein the defects could be cured, but was a wholly incompetent appeal”. It noted that an exemption could have been sought under Rules 14 and 15 of the NCLAT Rules, and that the NCLAT ought not to have extended indulgence without first checking whether the appeal was instituted at all.

The drafting point is simple. If the certified copy is not in hand, file the exemption application under Rules 14 and 15 at the time of filing, not later. The NCLAT’s own e-filing checklist requires a separate interlocutory application for exemption from filing the certified copy.

One helpful clarification: a free certified copy is still a certified copy. In State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd (Supreme Court, 27.09.2024), the Court held that the free copy and the paid copy “are treated as certified copies for the purpose of Rule 50” and stand on the same footing.

E-filing: What Stops the Clock?

The NCLAT’s position moved more than once, and the Supreme Court said so sharply. By an order dated 24 December 2022 the NCLAT clarified that “limitation shall be computed with reference to the date of e-filing”, with the physical copy to follow within seven days. By a Registrar’s order of 15 May 2023, “the filing of hard copies of Appeals/ Interlocutory Applications/ Reply / Rejoinder etc. shall not be mandatory with immediate effect”.

In Sanket Kumar Agarwal and Kalate, the Supreme Court confirmed that the date of e-filing determines when an NCLAT appeal is treated as filed for limitation purposes. In Sanket Kumar Agarwal, the Court also criticised the NCLAT’s inconsistent directions as “flip-flops” and described the earlier insistence on duplicate physical filing as “utterly incomprehensible”.

The Outer Limit is Absolute

Bengal Chemists & Druggists Association v. Kalyan Chowdhury, (2018) 3 SCC 41, remains the controlling authority. Section 433 “cannot come to the aid of the appellant because the provisions of the Limitation Act only apply ‘as far as may be'”, and where section 421(3) contains its own proviso, “Section 5 of the Limitation Act obviously cannot apply”. The second period of 45 days is “a special inbuilt kind of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the special statute, which lays down that beyond the second period of 45 days, there can be no further condonation of delay”. The absence of the words “but not thereafter” makes no difference; the proviso is peremptory.

What does Soften the Rigour

• Section 12(2) exclusion of the registry’s own delay in supplying a copy — for the diligent applicant only (Sanket Kumar Agarwal).
• Section 14 principles. In Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd (Supreme Court, 10.03.2021), time spent bona fide prosecuting a writ petition that was dismissed on alternative-remedy grounds was excluded. Exclusion is not condonation, so it does not run into the outer limit at all.
• Free copy parity (SBI v. India Power Corporation).
• Upload date where no order was in fact pronounced (Kalate).
• Rules 14 and 15 exemption and extension — but the discretion “does not act as an automatic exception where litigants make no efforts to pursue a timely resolution of their grievance”.

What Can Actually be Challenged

Not a consent order. Section 421(2): “No appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal from an order made by the Tribunal with the consent of parties.”

Probably not a purely procedural interlocutory order. In V.R.G. Constructions (P) Ltd v. Vijayalakshmi Venkatachalam (NCLAT Chennai, 13.02.2025), the Bench read “order” in section 421(1) as confined to an order “which when passed during the pendency of the proceedings, decides a material right of the parties”. An order merely permitting an amendment was held not to qualify. This is a single Bench of the Appellate Tribunal and is persuasive rather than binding; no Supreme Court ruling on the point has been traced.

Rectification, recall and review are three different things. The NCLT may rectify a mistake apparent from the record within two years under section 420(2) — but not once an appeal has been preferred. The NCLAT has no power of review. It does have an inherent power of recall under Rule 11 for procedural error or fraud: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, 2024 INSC 102, records that a five-member Full Bench of the NCLAT so held, and that the Supreme Court upheld that view on 31 July 2023.

Onward to the Supreme Court, only on a question of law — 60 + 60 days under section 423 of the Companies Act, 45 + 15 days under section 62 of the IBC.

Can You Go to the High Court Instead?

Rarely, and the distinction matters. In Embassy Property Developments Pvt Ltd v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 13 SCC 308, the Supreme Court held that where the NCLT exercises “a jurisdiction not vested in it in law”, it is coram non judice and a writ under Article 226 may be entertained. But it also stressed “the distinction between the lack of jurisdiction and the wrongful exercise of the available jurisdiction” — a merely wrong order is for the statutory appeal, not for the writ court. It further held that allegations of fraud or collusion do not by themselves justify bypassing the NCLAT, because the tribunal can itself go into them.

If a High Court does relegate you to the appeal, the time spent there can be excluded on section 14 principles (Kalpraj Dharamshi).

Is the Rigour Justified?

The case for strictness is that the outer limit is deliberate legislative design, not an oversight, and that reading section 5 back in would render the second period “otiose”. As V. Nagarajan put it, “a sleight of interpretation of procedural rules cannot be used to defeat the substantive objective of a legislation that has an impact on the economic health of a nation”. Insolvency, in particular, cannot be run on open-ended timelines.

The case against is that the regime produces results that are hard to defend on their facts. In Sagufa Ahmed the outer date fell six days before a national lockdown and the appellants lost anyway. In V. Nagarajan a liquidator alleging a very large fraud lost the appeal entirely for relying on the upload date. In Angelwoods an appeal filed within the condonable period was treated as no appeal at all because of a documentary omission. And the Supreme Court has itself identified two systemic causes — tribunals affixing the date of hearing to an order pronounced later, and inconsistent e-filing practice — rather than attributing every loss to litigant default.

Both things are true: the timelines are policy, and the traps are real. The answer for a party is not to argue about the policy but to remove the traps — apply for the copy on day one, e-file early, and never let the certified copy become an afterthought.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many days do I have to appeal an NCLT order? Under the Companies Act 2013, 45 days from when a copy of the order is made available to you, extendable by not more than a further 45 days. Under the IBC, 30 days from pronouncement, extendable by not more than 15.

Can the NCLAT condone delay beyond the outer limit? No. In Bengal Chemists & Druggists Association v. Kalyan Chowdhury, (2018) 3 SCC 41, the Supreme Court held the further period peremptory and section 5 of the Limitation Act inapplicable.

Does limitation start when the order is uploaded on the website? Ordinarily no — it starts on pronouncement. The exception is where no order was in fact pronounced on the listed date, in which case time runs from upload (Kalate).

What if I file in time but without the certified copy? That is now a serious risk. In Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M. Lalitha, 2026 INSC 479, such an appeal was held “wholly incompetent”. File an exemption application under Rules 14 and 15 along with the appeal.

Is the appeal filed when I e-file or when I hand in the paper book? On e-filing. The NCLAT’s order of 24.12.2022 says limitation is computed from the date of e-filing, and hard copies ceased to be mandatory from 15.05.2023.

Can the NCLAT review its own order? No. But it can recall an order under Rule 11 for a procedural error — for example, a necessary party not served — or where fraud was practised on the tribunal.

Glossary

Certified copy — a copy issued by the registry under seal; under Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, a free copy and a paid copy count equally. Condonation — an order excusing delay; distinct from exclusion, which treats the period as never having run. Peremptory — admitting of no discretion. Coram non judice — before a forum without jurisdiction, so that the proceeding is a nullity. Recall — setting aside an order for a procedural defect, as opposed to reconsidering it on the merits.

Read Next

• Oppression and Mismanagement under Sections 241-242: A Shareholder’s Guide to NCLT/NCLAT Remedies — the cluster guide to the substantive remedy.
• Section 244 Waiver: How a Shareholder Below the 10% Threshold Gets Into the NCLT — the maintainability gate before the merits.

Sources

• Companies Act 2013, sections 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 433
• Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, sections 61, 62
• NCLAT Rules 2016, Rules 11, 14, 15, 22; NCLT Rules 2016, Rule 50
• NCLAT orders on limitation and e-filing dated 24.12.2022 and 15.05.2023
• Bengal Chemists & Druggists Association v. Kalyan Chowdhury, (2018) 3 SCC 41 (02.02.2018)
• Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd (Supreme Court, 18.09.2020)
• V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd, (2022) 2 SCC 244 (22.10.2021)
• Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt Ltd, 2023 INSC 727 (01.05.2023)
• Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd, 2023 INSC 1063 (04.12.2023)
• Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, 2024 INSC 102 (12.02.2024)
• State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd (Supreme Court, 27.09.2024)
• Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M. Lalitha, 2026 INSC 479 (12.05.2026)
• Embassy Property Developments Pvt Ltd v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 13 SCC 308 (03.12.2019)
• Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd (Supreme Court, 10.03.2021)
• V.R.G. Constructions (P) Ltd v. Vijayalakshmi Venkatachalam, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 16 of 2025, NCLAT Chennai, 13.02.2025