A. RAJENDRA versus GONUGUNTA MADHUSUDHAN RAO & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 681 · Decided: 04-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 681 : 2025 INSC 447
A. Rajendra 
v. 
Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 11070-11071 of 2024)
04 April 2025
[Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and 
Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the limitation to file an appeal under Section 60(5) of 
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code starts from the date of 
pronouncement of the order or from the date when the order is 
communicated to the parties.
Headnotes†
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 60(5) – 
Period of limitation to run from the date of pronouncement 
of the order by the Adjudicating Authority – Interpretation of 
procedural rules cannot be used to defeat the substantive 
objective of legislation – Strict construction of time limits in 
the Code in line the legislative intent: 
The Appellant filed two Appeals under Section 60(5) of the 
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 challenging two separate 
orders of the Adjudicating Authority – However, appeals were 
preferred without any application for condonation of delay – Since 
the first appeal had been filed along with free certified copy of 
the order dated 20.07.2023, which, on being ready and became 
available on 01.08.2023 was made the basis to assert in the 
application that the appeal was within limitation whereas in the 
application in the other appeal, it was asserted that the period of 
limitation would begin from the date of knowledge of the contents 
of the order which was made available to the appellant by the 
‘RP’ on 07.08.2023, therefore the appeal was within limitation – 
Although it was mentioned that the copies have been applied for by 
instructing the counsel, but no proofs thereof have been submitted 
rather at a subsequent stage it is admitted as a matter of fact that 
the appellant has not applied for the certified copy of any of the 
* Author
682
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Orders – The NCLAT decided that the appeals have not been filed 
within limitation and therefore could not have been entertained.
Held: The statutory time limit of 30 days within which an appeal 
can be preferred has been provided for in sub-section (2) of 
Section 61 of IBC – Proviso thereto allows an additional period 
of 15 days to file an appeal only on the satisfaction of NCLAT 
that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier 
within the initial period of 30 days – The restrictions with regard to 
allowing extension in the provisions stipulated is cloaked in such 
a manner that the provisions have to be strictly followed – The 
first aspect is that the period is extendable by 15 days and not 
beyond that – This period cannot be claimed as a matter of right 
for extension of the limitation rather it is laced with the satisfaction 
at the end of the NCLAT upon having shown sufficient cause – 
The discretion, therefore, has further been circumscribed and not 
merely left at the whims and fancy of NCLAT – The cumulative 
reading of the proviso would therefore entail that the extension of 
period so provided for has to be strictly construed and has not to 
be exercised in a liberal manner which highlights the legislative 
intent which has to be given effect to. [Para 14]
By referring to V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited [2021] 
14 SCR 736, it was held that the scheme of Section 61 of the 
IBC, 2016 does not contain the condition for commencement of 
period of limitation only after obtaining a certified copy of the Order, 
thereby refuting the justification of non-availability of certified copy 
of the Order offered for delay in filing the appeal – It was held that 
the limitation thus, starts from the date of pronouncement of the 
Order and not from the date the order is made available to the 
parties. [Paras 14, 17]
A slate of interpretation of procedural rules cannot be used to 
defeat the substantive objective of legislation which is prescribed 
in a time frame – The period of limitation for filing the appeal 
having been laid down and proviso thereto limiting the exercise 
up to a distance for condoning the delay mandatorily has to be 
adhered to. [Para 18]
The incident which triggers limitation to commence is the date of 
pronouncement of the Order and in case of non-pronouncement 
of the Order when the hearing concludes, the date on which the 
Order is pronounced or uploaded on the website. [Para 24]
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
683
A. Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao & Ors.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act, 2016 – NCL

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.