In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified the strict conditions for availing the benefit of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, concerning exclusion of time for obtaining certified copies in limitation calculations.
NEW DELHI: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has clarified that
“the benefit of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963—which allows exclusion of the time taken for obtaining a certified copy of an order for calculating the period of limitation—is strictly available only when an application for the certified copy is filed before or on the date of preparation of the said copy”
This relief cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is subject to compliance with statutory and procedural rules.
This ruling came in a batch of Civil Appeals filed against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had dismissed the appeals on grounds of delay. The NCLAT had found that the accompanying applications for condonation of delay did not disclose sufficient cause and failed to meet the statutory requirements.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih observed that
“the appellants failed to make a timely application for the certified copy of the orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), thereby disentitling them from the benefit under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act”
The Court emphasized:
“The benefit of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act is available only when an application for the certified copy of the order is filed up to the date of its preparation. A litigant cannot claim automatic exclusion of the time taken for obtaining the certified copy if no such application has been made within the prescribed timeframe.”
Background of the Case
The appeals arose from two separate orders passed by the NCLT. The appellant, who was the suspended Managing Director and shareholder of a corporate debtor, had filed:
- One application under Section 60(5) read with Section 35(1)(n) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), seeking a direction to consider a Resolution Plan (RP) submitted by him and to stay the voting on other RPs.
- Another application by the Resolution Professional under Sections 30(6) and 31(1) of the IBC, read with Regulation 39(4) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, which had been allowed by the NCLT.
The appellant had filed the appeals before the NCLAT without an application for condonation of delay, asserting that they were within the limitation period provided under Section 61 of the IBC. However, upon issuance of notice, the respondents raised objections on the ground of limitation.
The NCLAT agreed with the respondents, dismissed the applications for condonation of delay, and consequently dismissed the appeals.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Upon examining the matter, the Supreme Court held that
“Section 61(2) of the IBC mandates the filing of an appeal within 30 days from the date of the order, with a further grace period of 15 days for delay, but only upon demonstration of sufficient cause. Beyond this, the delay cannot be condoned”
The Bench underscored the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules, especially Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, which mandates the annexation of a certified copy with the appeal. The appellant’s failure to apply for a certified copy rendered the appeal defective and time-barred.
The Court reiterated:
“The limitation period begins from the date of pronouncement of the order. In cases where orders are pronounced in open court, limitation starts from that very date. If pronounced later or uploaded subsequently, the date of upload becomes relevant. However, in both cases, the benefit of Section 12(2) can only be claimed if the application for the certified copy is filed prior to or on the date of its preparation.”
Dismissal of Appeals
The Supreme Court found that in the first appeal, the application for condonation of delay did not disclose any valid reasons to justify the delay. In the second appeal, the appellant had not even applied for a certified copy, making any application for condonation of delay unsustainable.
The Court noted:
“No steps were taken by the appellant to seek a certified copy of the order, and hence, no exclusion of time under Section 12(2) is permissible. Moreover, the satisfaction of the Appellate Tribunal on the existence of sufficient cause is a necessary condition for condonation of delay, which was completely absent in the present case.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the NCLAT and dismissed both appeals.
Case Title: A Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 447
Appearance:
- For the Appellant: Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar, AOR Raghav Sabharwal
- For the Respondents: Senior Advocates Tapesh Kumar Singh, Amit Sibal; AORs Tulika Mukherjee, Pallavi Pratap, Divya Anand, Siddharth Sangal; Advocates Kumar Anurag Singh, Zain A. Khan, Vaibhav More, Dev Aaryan, Petrushka Dasgupta, Richa Mishra, Harshita Agrawal, and Mushkan Mangla
Key Takeaway:
The ruling reinforces the principle that
“procedural compliance is paramount in matters involving limitation and that statutory benefits like Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act are conditional, not automatic. Litigants must act diligently and within the bounds of the law to preserve their rights”
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE