Typo Correction Won’t Revive IBC Appeal Limitation: Analysis of Yerramaneni Ramakrishna & Ors. Vs Suraksha Realty Ltd. & Ors. (NCLAT Delhi)
Introduction
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, in Yerramaneni Ramakrishna & Ors. Vs Suraksha Realty Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1585 of 2024, decided on 30/08/2024, has reaffirmed the strict timelines prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
The core issue before the NCLAT was whether a subsequent order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Court-2) merely correcting a typographical error in the date of pronouncement could be treated as restarting or shifting the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC. The Appellants sought condonation of a 15‑day delay, while the Tribunal, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in V. Nagarajan vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. & Ors., (2022) 2 SCC 244, ultimately held that the delay was 16 days and therefore beyond its statutory power to condone.
This decision is significant for insolvency practitioners and assessees as it clarifies that a rectification limited to correcting a typographical error in the date of pronouncement does not alter the starting point of limitation under Section 61(2) of the IBC.
Factual Background
Impugned Order and Filing of Appeals
- The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Ahmedabad Court-2) pronounced the impugned order in
IA No. 357 of 2023 in CP(IB) No. 268(AHM)/2020on 13.05.2024. - Two appeals were thereafter e‑filed before the NCLAT on 28.06.2024.
- An office report prepared by the Registry recorded that:
- The 30‑day limitation period for filing an appeal under
Section 61(2)expired on 12.06.2024. - The appeals were filed on the 16th day after the expiry of the 30‑day period.
- The 30‑day limitation period for filing an appeal under
Based on this computation, the office report suggested that the appeals were filed beyond the outer limit of delay that can be condoned in terms of the proviso to Section 61(2) of the IBC.
Applications for Condonation of Delay
To overcome the objection on limitation, the Appellants filed:
IA No. 5760 of 2024, andIA No. 5765 of 2024
in the two appeals, seeking condonation of a 15‑day delay in filing. The crux of the Appellants’ stand was that limitation had to be calculated not from 13.05.2024 but from 14.05.2024, when the Adjudicating Authority passed an order correcting a typographical error in the earlier order.
Suo Motu Rectification by NCLT
The Adjudicating Authority, on 14.05.2024, exercised its power under Rule 154 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. By this order, it corrected a typographical mistake in the date of pronouncement recorded in the order dated 13.05.2024. The original order had mistakenly mentioned the date of pronouncement as 13.06.2024 instead of 13.05.2024.
The rectification order, reproduced in the NCLAT judgment, clarified:
“…there is typographical error in mentioning it of declaration of order as 13.06.2024 instead of 13.05.2024. Hence, we hereby correct the said order as under ‘Order Pronounced on 13.05.2024.’ Registry is directed to upload the corrected copy of order.”
It was not in dispute that the matter had been listed for pronouncement on 13.05.2024 and that the order was in fact pronounced on that date.
Rival Contentions on Limitation
Appellants’ Submissions
The Appellants argued that:
- The limitation period should run from 14.05.2024, being the date on which the Adjudicating Authority passed the rectification order.
- The order dated 13.05.2024 should be treated as having merged into the subsequent order dated 14.05.2024.
- Consequently, the 30‑day limitation would expire later, and the appeals filed on 28.06.2024 would be delayed by only 15 days, within the condonable period under the proviso to
Section 61(2). - In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on the NCLAT decision in:
- `Ashok Tiwari vs. Tattva & Mittal Lifespaces Pvt. Ltd.- Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.