Skip to content
Supreme Court / Appeals

Supreme Court Appeal from NCLAT: Section 62 of IBC vs. Companies Act

The route from the NCLAT to the Supreme Court depends on the statute under which the NCLAT order was passed. Under the IBC, the appeal is confined to a question of law and the limitation is forty-five days. Under the Companies Act, the appeal is wider and the limitation is sixty plus sixty days.

29 Oct 20262 min read

The IBC Route

Section 62 of the IBC permits an appeal to the Supreme Court against an NCLAT order within forty-five days. The appeal lies only on a question of law. The Supreme Court has held that it will not re-open findings of fact, and that the appeal is not a continuation of the original proceeding. The forty-five-day period is strict, and the Supreme Court has declined to condone delays beyond the statutory window.

The Companies Act Route

Section 423 of the Companies Act permits an appeal to the Supreme Court against an NCLAT order within sixty days, with a further extension of up to sixty days on sufficient cause. The appeal lies on a question of law or on a substantial question of law. The scope is wider than the IBC route, but the Supreme Court still does not sit as a court of appeal on facts.

The “Question of Law” Distinction

The IBC’s “question of law” is narrower than the Companies Act’s “substantial question of law.” A question of law involves the interpretation of a statute or a legal principle; a substantial question of law is one that is debatable, not settled, and has a material bearing on the outcome. The appellant should characterise the ground correctly, because a factual ground dressed as a legal question will be dismissed at the threshold.

The Interaction with Article 136

The Supreme Court’s special leave jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary and is not a substitute for the statutory appeal. The Court has repeatedly held that Article 136 will not be used to bypass the statutory route or its limitation. An appellant who has missed the statutory deadline cannot revive the appeal through Article 136.

The Practical Choice

The appellant should identify the statute under which the NCLAT order was passed, compute the limitation, and frame the grounds within the statutory scope. A “combined” appeal under both routes is not permissible; the appellant must elect the correct route.

Call to Action: For Supreme Court appeal strategy, question-of-law framing, or limitation assessment, contact office@anujdesaiassociates.com or 9619456656. Website: https://anujdesaiassociates.com. LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/ca-anuj-desai-122547230.

Compliance GuideSupreme Court appeal NCLATsection 62 IBC appealsection 423 companies act appealNCLAT to Supreme Courtappeal question of lawIBC appeal Supreme CourtCompanies Act appeal Supreme CourtNCLAT order appealSupreme Court jurisdiction NCLATsection 62 limitationsection 423 limitationAnuj Desai Associates Supreme Court appeal
Share

Related insights

Companies Act / Board Governance

Section 185 Loans to Directors: The 2023 Amendment and Its Impact

A technical breakdown of Section 185 after the 2023 amendment: the surviving prohibition, the special resolution gateway, and the documentation conditions that determine whether a director loan is defensible before the ROC or NCLT.

29 Oct 2026

Companies Act / Treasury & Investment Compliance

Section 186 Loans and Investments: Calculating the 60%/100% Limits

How the 60%/100% outer limit actually works, why the higher figure governs, and the three-tier approval chain that determines when a board resolution is no longer sufficient for loans, guarantees, securities, and investments.

29 Oct 2026

Companies Act / Inter-Corporate Transactions

Inter-Corporate Deposits (ICDs) and Section 186 Compliance

The ICD is not a standalone instrument. It is a Section 186 deployment that must satisfy the aggregate ceiling, the board-resolution-first rule, and the G-sec floor on interest—three conditions that are tested independently.

29 Oct 2026

Work with ADA

Ready to talk to an advisor?

Book a consultation and get a clear, considered view from a team that handles audit, tax, regulatory and cross-border work under one roof.