A) Abstract / Headnote

The judgment in State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Limited revolves around 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). The Supreme Court analyzed whether a free certified copy provided under Rule 50 could satisfy the requirement for filing appeals under Rule 22(2). The apex court resolved a divergence in the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and concluded that both certified copies obtained free of cost and those acquired through payment of fees are valid under the rules. The court condoned a minor delay in appeal filing, reinstating judicial efficiency and clarity regarding procedural compliance under insolvency laws.

Keywords:

Condonation of delay, Certified copy of order, Rule 50 NCLT Rules, Rule 22 NCLAT Rules, Section 61(2) IBC.

B) Case Details:

i) Judgment Cause Title: State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Limited
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10424 of 2024
iii) Judgment Date: September 27, 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud (CJI), Manoj Misra, J.
vi) Author: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud (CJI)
vii) Citation: [2024] 10 SCR 384 : 2024 INSC 774
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Rule 50, NCLT Rules, 2016
• Rule 22(2), NCLAT Rules, 2016
• Section 61(2), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC)
  ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None.
  x) Case is Related to: Procedural law under Insolvency Law.

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment:

The appeal arose from a procedural dispute regarding the condonation of a 3-day delay in filing an appeal before the NCLAT. The appellant, State Bank of India, had filed an insolvency application under Section 7 of the IBC, which the NCLT Hyderabad rejected. SBI appealed this decision to NCLAT Chennai but delayed the filing by three days due to reliance on a free certified copy of the impugned order issued by the NCLT under Rule 50. This procedural reliance led to conflicting interpretations within the NCLAT. The matter was escalated to the Supreme Court for final resolution.

D) Facts of the Case:

1. The NCLT dismissed SBI’s application on October 30, 2023, issuing its order.
2. The appellant obtained a free certified copy on November 14, 2023, under Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules.
3. SBI filed the appeal before NCLAT Chennai on December 2, 2023, three days beyond the statutory limit of 30 days, as prescribed under Section 61(2) of the IBC.
4. The NCLAT members diverged on whether the delay could be condoned based on reliance on the free certified copy provision.
5. The third member of the NCLAT ultimately dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds.

E) Legal Issues Raised:

i) Does Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules provide sufficient grounds to condone delays based on a free certified copy?
ii) Does Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules require appellants to obtain certified copies at their own expense for appeal purposes?
iii) What constitutes “sufficient cause” under Section 61(2) of the IBC for condonation of delay?

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments:

1. Free Certified Copy Satisfies Requirements: The petitioner argued that under Rule 50, the free certified copy provided by the Registry fulfills the requirement for filing an appeal.
2. Delay Was Minimal and Justifiable: The appellant contended that the delay of three days fell within the 15-day condonable window under Section 61(2) of the IBC.
3. Procedural Uniformity: Counsel emphasized that the procedural rules should not distinguish between copies obtained free of cost or via payment.

G) Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Obligation to Apply for Paid Copies: The respondents argued that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules imposes an active obligation on litigants to procure certified copies by application.
2. Reliance on Free Copies Not Justifiable: The respondents cited the decision in V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. [(2022) 2 SCC 244], asserting that the statutory mandate does not permit litigants to rely solely on free certified copies.
3. Bar of Limitation Strictly Enforced: The respondents maintained that the NCLAT was correct in dismissing the appeal based on procedural delay.

H) Judgment:

a) Ratio Decidendi:

1. Free Certified Copies Equally Valid: The Supreme Court held that both free certified copies and paid certified copies qualify under Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules for appeal purposes.
2. Condonation of Delay Justified: The court condoned the delay, noting that it fell within the 15-day extension period under Section 61(2).
3. Clarification of Procedural Obligations: The apex court clarified that procedural rules should not impose unnecessary burdens on litigants.

b) Obiter Dicta:

1. Distinction in Rules Resolved: The court emphasized the need to harmonize procedural rules to avoid conflicting interpretations.
2. Access to Justice: Procedural technicalities should not unduly restrict litigants’ rights to appeal.

c) Guidelines:

1. Interpretation of Rule 50 and Rule 22(2): Both free and paid certified copies are valid under these provisions.
2. Condonation Criteria: Courts should prioritize substantive justice over procedural delays when delays are minimal and justified.

I) Conclusion & Comments:

The judgment underscores the importance of procedural clarity under insolvency laws. It balances strict timelines with the broader principles of justice. By condoning a minor delay, the Supreme Court reinforced the judiciary’s commitment to substantive justice over procedural rigidity.

J) References:

1. V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd., [2021] 14 SCR 736 : (2022) 2 SCC 244
2. National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016
3. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016
4. Section 61(2), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
5. Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 317