Summary and Analysis of Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs. Dsk Global Education And Research Pvt. Ltd. & Another

1. Heading of the Judgment

ASHDAN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & OTHERS vs. DSK GLOBAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER
(Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 10603 of 2024; Decided on August 12, 2025)

Citation: ASHDAN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. vs. DSK GLOBAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH PVT. LTD., 2025 INSC 959 (Supreme Court of India).

2. Relevant Laws and Sections

The judgment revolves around:

• Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC):
  Mandates appeals against orders of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) to be filed within 30 days before the NCLAT.
  Allows a condonable delay of up to 15 days (total 45 days) if "sufficient cause" is shown.

• Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016:
  Requires every appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order.

• Precedents Cited:
  V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC 244:
  Stressed strict adherence to IBC timelines and certified copy requirements.
  A. Rajendra vs. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao (2025 INSC 447):
  Affirmed limitation period starts from the date of order pronouncement (not upload).

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellants: Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Successful Resolution Applicant).
  Respondents: DSK Global (Challenged Ashdan’s resolution plan).

• Key Dates:
  23.06.2023: NCLT approved Ashdan’s resolution plan.
  25.07.2023: DSK filed appeal before NCLAT (32 days after the order).
  01.07.2024: NCLAT upheld DSK’s appeal on merits.

• Core Issue:
  Whether DSK’s appeal before NCLAT was barred by limitation due to procedural defects.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Defective Filing by DSK (Respondent No. 1)

• Limitation Period Violation:
  The NCLT order was pronounced on June 23, 2023. Limitation to appeal expired on July 23, 2023 (30 days).
  DSK filed the appeal on July 25, 2023 (32 days later), beyond the 30-day window.

• Procedural Lapses:
  No Certified Copy: Rule 22(2) of NCLAT Rules mandates appeals to include a certified copy of the impugned order. DSK filed the appeal without this copy.
  No Condonation/Exemption Applications: DSK neither sought condonation of delay nor exemption from filing the certified copy at the time of appeal (filed belatedly on September 22, 2023).

B. Legal Principles from Precedents

• V. Nagarajan Case (Binding Law):
  IBC timelines are sacrosanct and override general laws.
  Filing a certified copy is mandatory and indicates due diligence. Tribunals cannot routinely waive this requirement.

• Limitation Computation:
  Limitation starts from the date of pronouncement (June 23, 2023), not the upload date (June 26, 2023).
  Delays beyond 45 days (30 + 15) are fatal.

C. NCLAT’s Error

• Ignored Limitation Issue:
  NCLAT decided the appeal on merits without addressing DSK’s procedural defects, despite objections from Ashdan.

• Misplaced Reliance on Discretion:
  NCLAT cannot use Rule 14 (power to exempt procedural rules) to bypass mandatory requirements of Rule 22(2).

D. Supreme Court’s Ruling

• Appeal Allowed on Technical Ground:
  DSK’s appeal before NCLAT was time-barred and procedurally invalid due to:
  (i) Filing beyond 30 days (no condonation sought initially),
  (ii) Non-filing of certified copy.

• Consequence:
  NCLAT’s judgment dated July 1, 2024 was set aside.
  The resolution plan approved by NCLT (in favor of Ashdan) was restored.

E. Key Takeaway

"IBC is a time-bound code. Procedural lapses—especially non-compliance with limitation periods and certified copy requirements—render an appeal non-maintainable. Tribunals must scrutinize defects before examining merits."
(Paragraph 12, Judgment)