Supreme Court clarifies limitation period for appeals under Section 61(2) IBC: Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors. (2025) INSC 639 (May 7, 2025)

Date of the Judgment: May 7, 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 639
Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., R. Mahadevan, J.
Can the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) condone delays exceeding the statutorily prescribed limit for filing appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors., clarifying the extent of NCLAT’s power to condone delays beyond the stipulated 45-day period under Section 61(2) of the IBC. The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, held that NCLAT does not have the authority to condone delays beyond the maximum period of 45 days.

Case Background

The case revolves around an appeal filed by Raj Kumar Banerjee (Respondent No. 1), an erstwhile minority shareholder of Rohit Ferro-Tech Limited (Corporate Debtor), against the approval of a resolution plan submitted by Tata Steel Ltd. (Appellant). The Committee of Creditors had approved the resolution plan, which was subsequently sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata, on April 7, 2022. Aggrieved by this decision, Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the NCLAT, seeking to set aside the NCLT’s order and direct the Resolution Professional to re-evaluate the resolution plan. The appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of a 15-day delay in filing.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The NCLAT condoned the delay, leading Tata Steel to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible 45-day period (30 days of limitation + 15 days of condonable delay) as prescribed under Section 61(2) of the IBC. Tata Steel argued that the NCLAT erroneously applied Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, by incorrectly calculating the expiry date of the initial 30-day limitation period. Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, argued that the appeal was filed within the condonable period, considering the date of intimation of the resolution plan approval and the applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act due to a Sunday falling within the limitation period.

Legal Framework

The legal framework central to this case includes:

✓ Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC): This section deals with appeals against orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). Sub-section (2) stipulates that appeals must be filed within 30 days, with a provision for condonation of delay up to an additional 15 days if sufficient cause is shown.

“S.61 – Appeals and Appellate Authority
(1) ….
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before
the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal:
Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an
appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied
that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not
exceed fifteen days.
(3) .…”

✓ Section 238A of the IBC: This section makes the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable to proceedings and appeals before the Adjudicating Authority and the NCLAT.

“238A.Limitation –
The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) shall, as far as may be,
apply to the proceedings or appeals before the Adjudicating Authority, the
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be.”

✓ Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act, 1963: Defines “period of limitation” and “prescribed period.”

“Section 2 – Definitions
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, –
(j) “period of limitation” means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit,
appeal or application by the Schedule, and “prescribed period” means the
period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act”.

✓ Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Addresses the expiry of the prescribed period when the court is closed.

“Section 4 – Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed.
Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day
when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted,
preferred or made on the day when the court reopens.
Explanation.—
A court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this
section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that
day.”

✓ Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016: This rule provides for the computation of time periods, excluding the day from which the period is reckoned and extending the period if the last day expires on a day when the office of the Tribunal is closed.

“3. Computation of time period-
Where a period is prescribed by the Act and these rules or under any other law
or is fixed by the Tribunal for doing any act, in computing the time, the day from
which the said period is to be reckoned shall be excluded, and if the last day
expires on a day when the office of the Tribunal is closed, that day and any
succeeding days on which the Tribunal remains closed shall also be excluded.”

Arguments

Arguments by Tata Steel Ltd. (Appellant):

✓ The limitation period of 30 days for filing an appeal against the NCLT’s order expired on May 7, 2022, which was a Saturday. Even with the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the additional 15-day period expired on May 22, 2022.
✓ The appeal was e-filed on May 23, 2022, and physically filed on May 24, 2022, which was beyond the 45-day limit.
✓ The benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act is not applicable as May 7, 2022, was a working Saturday for the NCLAT registry.
✓ Relied on V . Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat Powers Limited & Others [ (2022) 2 SCC 244 ], Kalpraj Dharamshi & Another v. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited & Another [ (2021) 10 SCC 401 ], Safire Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Another [ Civil Appeal No.2212 of 2021 ], and National Spot Exchange Limited v. Mr. Anil Kohli [ Civil Appeal No.6187 of 2019 ], to argue that the appeal could not be entertained beyond the extended period of 15 days.
✓ Cited Ajay Gupta v. Raju @ Rajendra Singh Yadav [ (2016) 14 SCC 314 ], to support the argument that Section 4 of the Limitation Act is not applicable when the last day for filing falls on a working Saturday.

Arguments by Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors. (Respondent No. 1):

✓ The appeal was within the statutorily condonable period of 15 days as per Section 61(2) of the IBC.
✓ Respondent No. 1 became aware of the resolution plan approval only on April 8, 2022, when the Corporate Debtor issued an intimation letter to the stock exchanges.
✓ The initial 30-day limitation period ended on May 8, 2022, which was a Sunday, thus extending the period to the next working day, May 9, 2022. The 15-day condonable period commenced on May 10, 2022, and ended on May 24, 2022.
✓ The Resolution Professional failed to comply with disclosure obligations under the SEBI (Listing Obligation and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, contributing to the delay.
✓ The limitation period should commence from April 8, 2022, the date of disclosure, as Respondent No. 1 was not a party to the proceedings before the NCLT.
✓ Relied on Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules, arguing that the limitation period was extended due to a Sunday.
✓ Respondent No. 1 was not in possession of the relevant documents required to file the appeal, contributing to the delay.

Arguments Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 was within the prescribed limitation period of 30 days, along with the additional condonable period of 15 days as provided under section 61(2) IBC.
2. If not, whether the NCLAT has the power to condone the delay beyond the said prescribed and condonable period under the IBC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

✓ Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. M/s. Subash Projects & Mktg. Ltd. [ (2012) 2 SCC 624 ]: Explained the meaning of “prescribed period” under Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the scope and applicability of Section 4 of the said Act.
✓ Sagufa Ahmed and Others v. Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd. & Others [ (2021) 2 SCC 317 ]: Reiterated that the expression “prescribed period” appearing in Section 4 cannot be construed to mean anything other than the period of limitation.
✓ Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v. Walchandnagar Industries Limited (WIL) [ (2023) 8 SCC 453 ]: Held that the benefit of exclusion of period during which Court is closed shall be available when the application for setting aside award is filed within “prescribed period of limitation” and shall not be available in respect of period extendable by Court in exercise of its discretion.
✓ My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. [ 2025 SCC OnLine SC 70 ]: Reaffirmed the principles laid down in Assam Urban and Bhimashankar regarding the applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act.
✓ V . Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. [ (2022) 2 SCC 244 ]: Clarified that the limitation period for filing an appeal to the NCLAT commences from the date of pronouncement of the order by the NCLT.
✓ Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistra ITCL India Ltd. & Others [ (2024) 3 SCC 27 ]: Pointed out that the date on which the limitation begins to run is intrinsically linked to the date of pronouncement.
✓ A. Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Others [ 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72 ]: Stated that where the judgment was pronounced in open Court, the period of limitation starts running from that very day.
✓ Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited [ (2018) 1 SCC 353 ]: Underscored the IBC’s strict procedural discipline.
✓ Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited & Another [ (2021) 10 SCC 401 ]: Held that the NCLAT cannot condone any delay beyond 15 days even on equitable grounds.

Authority Treatment Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Tata Steel Ltd. and set aside the order passed by the NCLAT condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. M/s. Subash Projects & Mktg. Ltd. [ (2012) 2 SCC 624 ]: The Court relied on this case to explain the meaning of “prescribed period” under Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the scope and applicability of Section 4 of the said Act.

✓ Sagufa Ahmed and Others v. Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd. & Others [ (2021) 2 SCC 317 ]: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the expression “prescribed period” appearing in Section 4 cannot be construed to mean anything other than the period of limitation.

✓ Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v. Walchandnagar Industries Limited (WIL) [ (2023) 8 SCC 453 ]: The Court relied on this case to hold that the benefit of exclusion of period during which Court is closed shall be available when the application for setting aside award is filed within “prescribed period of limitation” and shall not be available in respect of period extendable by Court in exercise of its discretion.

✓ My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. [ 2025 SCC OnLine SC 70 ]: The Court relied on this case to reaffirm the principles laid down in Assam Urban and Bhimashankar regarding the applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act.

✓ V . Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. [ (2022) 2 SCC 244 ]: The Court relied on this case to clarify that the limitation period for filing an appeal to the NCLAT commences from the date of pronouncement of the order by the NCLT.

✓ Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistra ITCL India Ltd. & Others [ (2024) 3 SCC 27 ]: The Court relied on this case to point out that the date on which the limitation begins to run is intrinsically linked to the date of pronouncement.

✓ A. Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Others [ 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72 ]: The Court relied on this case to state that where the judgment was pronounced in open Court, the period of limitation starts running from that very day.

✓ Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited [ (2018) 1 SCC 353 ]: The Court relied on this case to underscore the IBC’s strict procedural discipline.

✓ Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited & Another [ (2021) 10 SCC 401 ]: The Court relied on this case to hold that the NCLAT cannot condone any delay beyond 15 days even on equitable grounds.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors. was primarily influenced by the strict timelines prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the limited power of the NCLAT to condone delays. The Court emphasized that the IBC is a time-bound framework designed to ensure timely resolution of insolvency proceedings, and any deviation from the prescribed timelines would undermine the efficacy and finality of the appellate mechanism. The Court also took note of the fact that the Company Secretary of the Corporate Debtor had duly informed the listing departments of both NSE and BSE about the NCLT order within 30 minutes of its pronouncement, which meant that the limitation period for filing the appeal commenced on April 7, 2022.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s logical reasoning for Issue No. 1 (Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period) can be represented as follows:

NCLT order on April 7, 2022
↓
Limitation period commenced on April 7, 2022
↓
30-day limitation expired on May 7, 2022 (Saturday)
↓
No extension under Section 4, Limitation Act (Registry open)
↓
Appeal filed on May 24, 2022 (beyond 45 days)
↓
Appeal time-barred

The Supreme Court’s logical reasoning for Issue No. 2 (Whether the NCLAT has the power to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period) can be represented as follows:

Section 61(2) IBC: 30 days + 15 days (condonable)
↓
Statute limits condonation period
↓
NCLAT’s power is statutory
↓
No inherent jurisdiction to extend time
↓
NCLAT cannot condone delay beyond 45 days

Key Takeaways

✓ Strict adherence to the timelines prescribed under the IBC is essential for all parties involved in insolvency proceedings.
✓ The NCLAT’s power to condone delays in filing appeals is limited to a maximum of 15 days beyond the initial 30-day period.
✓ Parties aggrieved by an order of the NCLT must act diligently and file appeals within the prescribed timelines, with limited scope for condonation of delay.
✓ The judgment reinforces the importance of timely resolution of insolvency proceedings and the need to prevent misuse of the appellate mechanism.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the NCLAT does not have the power to condone delays beyond the period stipulated under Section 61(2) of the IBC, which is 30 days plus a condonable period of 15 days. This decision reinforces the strict timelines prescribed under the IBC and clarifies the limited scope for condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision in Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors. upholds the strict timelines mandated by the IBC for filing appeals and clarifies that the NCLAT’s power to condone delays is limited to a maximum of 15 days beyond the initial 30-day period. The Court emphasized that adherence to these timelines is crucial for the effective and timely resolution of insolvency proceedings.

Category

Parent category: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Child categories:
✓ Section 61, Insolvency Child categories:
✓ Section 61, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
✓ Limitation
✓ Appeals