Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 01 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary; Respondent – Adani Infrastructure and Developers Private Limited.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Civil appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), challenging the NCLAT order dated 08 December 2025 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No.2316 of 2024.
  • Timeline of Filing: The appeal was initially presented on 29 January 2026, 7 days beyond the 45‑day period prescribed under sub‑section (1) of Section 62, but within the 15‑day grace period of sub‑section (2). An application for condonation of this 7‑day delay was filed. The appeal was subsequently marked defective; after curing the defects, it was re‑filed 82 days later, prompting a separate application for condonation of the re‑filing delay.
  • Statutory Framework Cited: Section 62, IBC allows a 45‑day filing period plus a 15‑day grace period (total 60 days). The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (Rule 6, Order VIII) provide a 28‑day window to cure defects; beyond this, no condonation is permissible.
  • Judicial Precedents Referenced:
  • Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P) Ltd. – strict adherence to 45‑day filing and 15‑day grace.
  • Kalparaj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. – emphasis on commercial wisdom of the Code of Conduct.
  • National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Dunar Foods Ltd., V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd., Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee – reaffirm that condonation beyond statutory periods is impermissible.
  • PEC Ltd. v. M/s Phulchand Exports Pvt. Ltd. – appeal dismissed where delay exceeded condonable period.
  • Saturn Ventures & Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. S. Gopalakrishnan – two‑day filing delay not condoned.
  • CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure & Developers (P) Ltd. (2025) – earlier liberal condonation in a Section 61 appeal, distinguished here.
  • Arguments Presented: Senior counsel Mr. Fernandes argued that the appellant, as a neutral officer, should receive liberal treatment and that the Supreme Court Rules do not cap re‑filing delay. He relied on the earlier coordinate‑bench decision that condoned a Section 61 re‑filing delay.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Court emphasized that:
  • The IBC’s strict timelines are intended to prevent dilatory tactics; the statute provides an absolute outer limit of 60 days for filing an appeal under Section 62.
  • A defective appeal must be cured within 28 days; failure to do so extinguishes the right of appeal.
  • Allowing a litigant to file a defective appeal merely to preserve the limitation period and then cure defects at leisure would defeat the legislative intent.
  • The Supreme Court Rules are subordinate to the IBC; where they clash, the IBC prevails.
  • The appellant’s status as a neutral officer does not empower the Court to override the statutory time‑bars under Article 142.
  • The earlier liberal condonation in a Section 61 matter cannot be extended to a separate Section 62 appeal.
  • Findings on Applications: The Court found that sufficient cause was not shown for either the initial filing delay or the re‑filing delay. Consequently, both applications for condonation were rejected.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal filed by CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary is dismissed as time‑barred because it was filed beyond the 60‑day limit and the defects were not cured within the 28‑day period.
  • All connected applications for condonation of delay are also dismissed.
  • No further relief or remand is granted.

Topics: Insolvency Law, Appeal Limitation