STATE BANK OF INDIA versus INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 384, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 384 : 2024 INSC 774
State Bank of India 
v. 
India Power Corporation Limited
(Civil Appeal No. 10424 of 2024)
27 September 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI and Manoj Misra, J.]
Issue for Consideration
The issue which arises for consideration is the interpretation 
of Rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016  
(NCLT Rules) and Rule 22 of the National Company Law Appellate 
Tribunal Rules, 2016 (NCLAT Rules).
Headnotes†
National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Rule 50 – 
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 –  
Rule 22 – Interpretation of:
Held: Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules requires that every appeal 
shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned 
order – Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules prescribes that the Registry 
shall send a certified copy of the final order free of cost and 
certified copies may be made available on payment of costs in  
terms of the Schedule of Fees in all other cases – Both the 
certified copy which is made available free of cost as well as the 
certified copy which is made available on the payment of costs, 
are treated as certified copies for the purpose of Rule 50 – A 
litigant who does not apply for a certified copy cannot then fall 
back and claim that he was awaiting the grant of a free copy to 
obviate the bar of limitation. [Para 19]
National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Rule 50 – 
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 –  
Rule 22 – Before NCLAT, appellant filed
an application for 
condonation of delay on the ground that the appeal was lodged 
with delay of 3 days beyond the 30 day period prescribed – A 
divergence arose between the two members of the NCLAT –  
The third member agreed with the judicial member in 
dismissing the application for condonation of delay:
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
385
State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Limited
Held: The Judicial Member, NCLAT held that the certified copy 
which was filed by the appellant was a “free of cost” copy and hence 
in the absence of an application for the grant of a certified copy, 
the delay of three days could not be condoned – The Technical 
Member, on the other hand, held that no distinction could be made 
between certified copies obtained through the payment of fee and 
a free copy and sufficient cause was shown for condoning the 
delay of three days – The third member agreed with the judicial 
member – In the instant case, the free copy was made available 
on 14.11.2023 after the decision of the NCLT was pronounced 
on 30.10.2023 – The appeal was lodged on 02.12.2023 – The 
appeal was lodged with a delay of only three days beyond the 
statutory period of 30 days and, therefore, fell within the condonable 
period of 15 days – Sufficient cause was shown for condoning the 
delay of three days – A Schedule of Fees is prescribed by the 
NCLT Rules – Entry 31 of the Schedule stipulates that the fee 
for obtaining true certified copies of final orders passed to parties 
other than the concerned parties under Rule 50 shall be Rupees 
five per page – The stipulation of Rupees five per page in Entry 31 
excludes “the concerned parties under Rule 50” – The provisions 
of Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules place both the free certified copy 
as well as the certified copy which is applied for
on payment of 
fees on the same footing – The appeal in the present case was 
filed within the condonable period of 15 days, which should have 
been condoned – Accordingly, the delay of three days in filing the 
appeal shall stand condoned. [Paras 5, 20, 21, 22, 23]
Case Law Cited
V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited & Ors. [2021] 14 
SCR 736 : (2022) 2 SCC 244 – relied on.
List of Acts
National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016; National Company 
Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016; Insolvency and Bankruptcy 
Code, 2016.
List of Keywords
Interpretation of Rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal 
Rules, 2016; Rule 22 of the National Company Law Appellate 
Tribunal Rules, 2016; Section 61(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy 
Code, 2016; Condonation of delay; Certified copy of order; Free 
of costs; Payment of costs; Bar of limitation.
386
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10424 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2023 of the National 
Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench in I.A. No. 158 of 
2024 in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(INS) No. 53 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Tushar Mehta, SG, Madhav Kanoria, Ms. Surabhi Khattar, Ms. Neha 
Shivhare, Sriharsh Raj, M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Advs. for 
the Appellant.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Anirban Bhattacharya, Rajeev 
Chowdhary, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Pranjit Bhattacharya, Advs. for the 
Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
On a difference between two members of the National Company 
Law Appellate Tribunal,1 reflected in a split verdict on 1 May 2024, 
the third Member, by a judgment dated 9 July 2024, agreed with the 
Judicial Member in dismissing the application for condonation of delay.
2.	
The facts, insofar as they are relevant for the disposal of the Appeal, 
fall in a narrow compass.
3.	
The appellant, State Bank of India, instituted an application under 
Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 20162 against the 
respondent. The National Company Law Tribunal3 at Hyderabad 
rejected the petition on the ground of maintainability by an order 
dated 30 October 2023. 
4.	
The appeal before the NCLAT, Chennai was filed on 2 December 
2023. The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay on 
the ground that the
appeal had been lodged with a delay of 3 days 
beyond the 30 day period prescribed in Section 61(2).
1	
“NCLAT”
2	
“IBC”
3	
“NCLT”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
387
State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Limited
5.	
A divergence arose between the two members of the NCLAT on 1 
May 2024. The Judicial Member held that the certified copy which 
was filed by the appellant was a “free of cost” copy and hence in the 
absence of an application for the grant of a certified copy, the delay 
of three days could not be condoned. The Technical Member, on the 
other hand, held that no distinction could be made between certified 
copies obtained through the payment of fee and a free copy and 
sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay of three days.
6.	
The divergence was, thereafter, referred to a third Member of the 
NCLAT who has ruled that the free copy provided under Rule 50 of 
the National Company Law Tribunal Rules 20164 cannot be treated 
as a certified copy which is referred to in Rule 22(2) of the National 
Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules 2016.5
7.	
The appeal has been consequently dismissed on delay on 9 July 2024. 
8.	
The issue which arises for consideration turns on the interpretation 
of Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules and Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules.
9.	
An appeal to the appellate authority is governed by the provisions 
of Section 61(2) of the IBC which provides as follows :
“61.(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.”
10.	 Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules provides as follows :
“50. Registry to send certified copy.—The Registry shall 
send a certified copy of final order passed to the parties 
concerned free of cost and the certified copies may be 
made available with cost as per Schedule of fees, in all 
other cases.”
4	
“The NCLT Rules”
5	
“The NCLAT Rules”
388
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
11.	 Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules is in the following terms :
“22. Presentation of appeal.—(1) Every appeal shall be 
presented in Form NCLAT-1 in triplicate by the appellant 
or petitioner or applicant or respondent, as the case may 
be, in person or by his duly authorised representative 
duly appointed in this behalf in the prescribed form with 
stipulated fee at the filing counter and non-compliance of 
this may constitute a valid ground to refuse to entertain 
the same.
(2) Every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy 
of the impugned order.
(3) All documents filed in the Appellate Tribunal shall be 
accompanied by an index in triplicate containing their 
details and the amount of fee paid thereon.
(4) Sufficient number of copies of the appeal or petition or 
application shall also be filed for service on the opposite 
party as prescribed.
(5) In the pending matters, all other applications shall be 
presented after serving copies thereof in advance on the 
opposite side or his advocate or authorised representative.
(6) The processing fee prescribed by the rules, with required 
number of envelopes of sufficient size and notice forms 
as prescribed shall be filled along with memorandum of 
appeal.”
12.	 Rule 22(1) provides for 
(i)	
the presentation of an appeal in Form NCLAT-1;
(ii)	
the person by whom the appeal may be filed; and
(iii)	 the submission of the stipulated fee. Rule 22(2) stipulates that 
“every
appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the 
impugned order”. 
13.	 Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules governs the furnishing of certified copies. 
Rule 50 indicates that the Registry shall send a certified copy of the 
final order which has been passed to the parties concerned free of 
cost. It also indicates that certified copies may be made available 
against the payment of costs in terms of the Schedule of Fees, in
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
389
State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Limited
other cases. Rule 50 provides for a certified copy being provided free 
of cost and that a certified copy may be made available against the 
payment of costs, as indicated in the Schedule of Fees. The important 
point to note is that both the certified copy which is provided free of 
cost as well as the certified copy which is made on an application in 
that behalf are treated as certified copies for the purposes of Rule 50
14.	 Ms Surbhi Khattar, counsel has appeared on behalf of the appellant. 
The Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta, has also addressed the 
Court.
15.	 Ms Khattar has submitted that Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules places 
both the certified copy which is provided free of cost as well as the 
certified copy which is made available against the payment of costs 
as indicated in the Schedule of Fees on the same footing. It has 
been urged that as a matter of fact, the free certified copy was made 
available on 14 November 2023 and the appeal which was filed on 
2 December 2023 was well within the condonable period of 15 days 
beyond the period of 30 days which is stipulated in Section 61(2). 
16.	 On the other hand, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel 
appearing on behalf of the respondents placed reliance on the 
decision of the three Judge Bench in V Nagarajan Vs SKS Ispat 
and Power Limited & Ors6 (paragraphs 23 and 29). 
17.	 In order to consider the submissions which has been
urged on behalf 
of the respondent, it would be necessary to extract paragraphs 23 
and 29 of the above decision which read as follows :
“23. Therefore in a field which is not covered by a special 
law which invests NCLT with jurisdiction, the general 
principle for the computation of limitation for filing an 
appeal against an order of NCLT is governed by the 
statutory mandate of Section 420(3) of the Companies 
Act read with Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules, which enables 
a party to compute limitation from the date of receipt of 
the statutorily mandated free certified copy, without having 
to file its own application. However, the decision of this 
Court in Sagufa Ahmed [Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam 
Plywood Products (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 317 : (2021) 2 
6	
[2021] 14 SCR 736 : (2022) 2 SCC 244
390
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
SCC (Civ) 178] clarifies that the statutory mandate of a 
free copy is not to enable litigants to take two bites at the 
apple where they could compute limitation from either when 
the certified copy is received on the litigant’s application 
or received as a free copy from the Registry—whichever 
is later.
XXX XXX XXX
29. On the question of a certified copy for filing an appeal 
against an order passed by NCLT under IBC, Rule 22(2) 
of the NCLAT Rules mandates that an appeal has to be 
filed with a certified copy of the “impugned order”:
“22. Presentation of appeal.— (1) Every appeal shall 
be presented in Form Nclat-1 in triplicate by the 
appellant or petitioner or applicant or respondent, as 
the case may be, in person or by his duly authorised 
representative duly appointed in this behalf in the 
prescribed form with stipulated fee at the filing counter 
and non-compliance of this may constitute a valid 
ground to refuse to entertain the same.
(2) Every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified 
copy of the impugned order.”
(emphasis supplied)
Therefore, it cannot be said that the parties can 
automatically dispense with their obligation to apply for 
and obtain a certified copy for filing an appeal. Any delay 
in receipt of a certified copy, once an application has 
been filed, has been envisaged by the legislature and 
duly excluded to not cause any prejudice to a litigant’s 
right to appeal.”
18.	 In V Nagarajan,
the order of the NCLT was dated 31 December 2019 
and was uploaded on the website on 12 March 2020. There was a 
correction in the name of the Judicial Member who had passed the 
order on 20 March 2020. The appellant before this Court claimed 
to have awaited the issue of a free copy and allegedly sought a 
free copy on 23 March 2020 under the provisions Section 420(3) 
of the Companies Act 2013 read with Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
391
State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Limited
He claimed that the free copy had not been made available to him 
until that date and that in the meantime, the COVID-19 pandemic 
had intervened. The NCLAT, by its order dated 13 July, 2020, relied 
on Section 61(2) and came to the conclusion that the appeal was 
barred by limitation. It is in this context that this Court in paragraph 
23 of its decision (extracted above) observed that the mandate of 
a free copy was not to enable litigants to take “two bites at the 
apple where they could compute limitation from either when the 
certified copy is received on the litigant’s application or received 
as a free copy from the Registry—whichever is later”. This Court, 
therefore, held that parties could not automatically dispense with 
their obligation to apply for and obtain a certified copy for filing an 
appeal.
19.	 Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules requires that every appeal shall be 
accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. Rule 50 of 
the NCLT Rules prescribes that the Registry shall send a certified 
copy of the final order free of cost and certified copies may be made 
available on payment of costs in terms of the Schedule of Fees in 
all other cases. Both the certified copy which is made available free 
of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on the 
payment of costs, are treated as certified copies for the purpose of 
Rule 50. A litigant who does not apply for
a certified copy cannot then 
fall back and claim that he was awaiting the grant of a free copy to 
obviate the bar of limitation. This was the position in the decision of 
this Court in V Nagarajan. 
20.	 The facts of the present case are completely distinguishable. The free 
copy was made available on 14 November 2023 after the decision 
of the NCLT was pronounced on 30 October 2023. The appeal was 
lodged on 2 December 2023. The appeal was lodged with a delay of 
only three days beyond the statutory period of 30 days and, therefore, 
fell within the condonable period of 15 days. Sufficient cause was 
shown for condoning the delay of three days. 
21.	 A Schedule of Fees is prescribed by the NCLT Rules. Entry 31 of 
the Schedule stipulates that the fee for obtaining true certified copies 
of final orders passed to parties other than the concerned parties 
under Rule 50 shall be Rupees five per page. The stipulation of 
Rupees five per page in Entry 31 excludes “the concerned parties 
under Rule 50”.
392
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
22.	 The provisions of Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules place both the free 
certified copy as well as the certified copy which is applied for on 
payment of fees on the same footing. The appeal in the present case 
was filed within the condonable period of 15 days, which should 
have been condoned.
23.	 We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment 
and order of the NCLAT dated 7 May 2024. The delay of three days 
in filing the appeal shall stand condoned. The appeal shall stand 
restored to the file of the NCLAT.
24.	 The Court would wish to record its appreciation of the meticulous 
manner in which Ms Surbhi Khattar, appearing for the appellant had 
prepared the case and made submissions.
25.	 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Result of the Case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan