Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench (Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical))

Order Date: 25 September 2026

Case Overview

The Appellants, Lulu India Shopping Mall Private Limited and Lulu IT Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. (sister companies and operational creditors), filed two separate appeals challenging the order dated 20 November 2025 passed by the NCLT. The NCLT order had approved the resolution plan submitted by Nalwa Steel and Power Limited for the corporate debtor, Katerra India Private Limited. Both appeals were filed with a delay of 14 days, for which condonation applications (IA No. 105/2026 and IA No. 189/2026) were filed.

The Appellants stated the order was made available on the website on 24 November 2025. The last date for filing the appeal was 20 December 2025, and the last date within the condonable period under Section 61 of the IBC was 4 January 2026. The appeals were e-filed on 3 January 2026 (within the condonable period) but were officially scrutinized and found defective on 6 January 2026. The defects were rectified, and the appeals were re-filed on 12 January 2026.

The Appellants cited the Christmas and New Year festival season, limited key personnel availability, the need for critical information from their advocate for preparing appeals, time taken for affidavit execution, and multiple levels of internal approvals as reasons for the delay. They pleaded the delay was neither wanton nor deliberate.

The Respondents (Katerra India Private Limited) objected to the condonation on several procedural grounds: (a) The verification affidavit was notarized in Ernakulam while the executant was in Lucknow; (b) The appeals were not accompanied by stamp paper of requisite value at the time of initial filing; (c) Verification affidavits were dated 5 January 2026, whereas the appeal filing date was 3 January 2026; (d) Appeals were not filed with a certified copy of the impugned order as required by NCLAT Rule 22(2); (e) The cause shown for delay was unacceptable.

Discussion and Decision

The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties. It noted the appeals were e-filed on 3 January 2026 and scrutinized on 6 January 2026, where defects were raised regarding stamp paper, delay, and non-furnishing of the certified copy. These were rectified upon re-filing on 12 January 2026, along with applications for exemption from filing the certified copy (IA No. 107/2026 and IA No. 186/2026) and condonation of delay.

The Tribunal distinguished the case from Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M. Lalitha & Anr. [(2026) SCC Online SC 846], relied upon by the Respondents, noting that here the exemption applications were filed before the matter was taken up for hearing and the re-filing was completed by 12 January 2026, a mere 8 days after the 45-day period. It held the defect of not filing exemption applications initially was curable and had been promptly rectified.

Regarding the stamp paper, the Tribunal found the stamp paper for the condonation applications was dated prior to their filing dates (3 and 5 January 2026 for filings on 12 and 10 January 2026, respectively). For the main appeal verification affidavit dated 5 January 2026 filed on 3 January 2026, it held the defect was cured during re-filing on 12 January 2026, making the affidavit valid.

On the notarization issue, the Tribunal acknowledged the Appellant e-signed from Lucknow while notarization was done in Ernakulam through counsel. It stated the notarization ought to be done where the Appellant resides with physical presence for identification. However, citing the Supreme Court's principle in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & Anr. [Civil Appeal No.6701 of 2005] that "procedure is only a handmaid of justice," it held this was a curable procedural defect not done intentionally. The Appellant was given liberty to file a fresh affidavit with valid notarization.

The Tribunal concluded the objections were procedural and curable. Holding that the appeals were filed within the upper limit of the condonable period (4 January 2026) on 3 January 2026, it condoned the delay of 14 days.

Final Outcome

The delay in filing the appeals is condoned. The appeals (Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 45/2026 and Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 72/2026) are admitted and listed for hearing on 7 October 2026.

Topics: NCLAT Procedure, Delay Condonation, Insolvency Appeal