ANGELWOODS APARTMENT ALLOTTEES ASSOCIATION versus M LALITHA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2026] 5 S.C.R. 577 · Decided: 12-05-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 5 S.C.R. 577 : 2026 INSC 479
Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association 
v. 
M Lalitha and Another
(Civil Appeal No(s). 14439-14440 of 2025)
12 May 2026
[Sanjay Kumar* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the filing/refiling of the appeal by respondent No.1 was 
incurably tainted and ought to have been rejected at the threshold 
by NCLAT.
Headnotes†
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.61 – National 
Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 – rr.22, 26(2) – 
Respondent No. 1 e-filed Company Appeal with delay before 
NCLAT without certified copy of the impugned order passed 
by NCLT – Defects intimated by Registry – Appeal refiled with 
a delay of 150 days again without the certified copy of the 
order impugned – NCLAT allowed the applications filed by 
respondent No.1 seeking condonation of delay in the filing 
and the refiling of the appeal – Interference with:
Held: Order passed by NCLAT set aside – Respondent No.1 chose 
to e-file an appeal against order dated 14.08.2024 on the very last 
day available to her, in terms of the limitation prescribed under the 
proviso to s.61(2) – However, the filing of such appeal, without 
even applying for a certified copy of the order dated 14.08.2024, 
practically meant that there was no filing of an appeal in the eyes 
of law – A diligent litigant is expected to apply for a certified copy 
of the order sought to be appealed against before the period of 
limitation runs out and, by doing so, such litigant would be entitled 
to seek exclusion of the time taken to procure the certified copy for 
the purpose of limitation – However, Respondent No.1 did not even 
apply for a certified copy of the NCLT’s order dated 14.08.2024 till 
21.04.2025, long after the refiling of the appeal on 10.03.2025 – 
To make matters worse, respondent No.1 did not even choose to 
file an application for exemption from filing such certified copy at 
any point, be it at the time of filing the appeal on 28.09.2024 or 
* Author
578
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
its refiling on 10.03.2025 – This was the minimum requirement 
for respondent No.1 to have complied with, when she filed and 
refiled her appeal without a certified copy of the NCLT’s order 
dated 14.08.2024 – Appeal, as filed and refiled, was not a merely 
defective appeal, wherein the defects could be cured, but was a 
wholly incompetent appeal that did not satisfy the essentials to pass 
muster, in terms of the requirements prescribed under the Code 
and the NCLAT Rules – However, the NCLAT totally lost sight of 
these vital aspects while considering the two applications filed by 
respondent No.1 seeking condonation of delay in the filing and the 
refiling of the appeal – NCLAT ought not to have extended such 
indulgence to respondent No.1, without first ascertaining whether 
her appeal was instituted in accordance with the norms – Filing/
refiling of the appeal by respondent No.1 was incurably tainted and 
the same ought to have been rejected at the threshold. [Paras 9-11]
Case Law Cited
V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Others  [2021] 
14 SCR 736 : (2022) 2 SCC 244 – relied on.
Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors 
of Educomp Solutions Limited and Another [2021] 14 SCR 
321 : (2022) 2 SCC 401 – referred to.
List of Acts
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; National Company Law 
Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016.
List of Keywords
Company Appeal e-filed with delay; Company Appeal e-filed without 
certified copy of the impugned order; Company Appeal refiled 
with delay; Appeal filed without certified copy of impugned order; 
Incompetent appeal; Defective appeal; Condonation of delay in filing 
of appeal; Condonation of delay in refiling of appeal; Appeal not 
instituted in accordance with norms; Section 61 of Insolvency and 
Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Proviso to Section 61(2) of Insolvency and 
Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Rule 26(2) of the National Company Law 
Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016; Rule 22 of the National Company 
Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016; Filing/refiling of appeal; Strict 
timelines provided in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; 
Diligent litigant; Certified copy of the order appealed against.
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 
579
Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M Lalitha and Another
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).  
14439-14440 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2025 of the National 
Company Law Appellate Tri

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