Appeals and Appellate Authority
Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 deals with appeals and Appellate Authority. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013 (18 of 2013), any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The Act was enacted on 28 May 2016.
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013 (18 of 2013), any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal:
Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days.
(3) An appeal against an order approving a resolution plan under section 31 may be filed on the following grounds, namely:
(i) the approved resolution plan is in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force;
(ii) there has been material irregularity in exercise of the powers by the resolution professional during the corporate insolvency resolution period;
(iii) the debts owed to operational creditors of the corporate debtor have not been provided for in the resolution plan in the manner specified by the Board;
(iv) the insolvency resolution process costs have not been provided for repayment in priority to all other debts; or
(v) the resolution plan does not comply with any other criteria specified by the Board.
1[(4) An appeal against a liquidation order passed under section 33, or sub-section (4) of section 54L, or sub-section (4) of section 54N, may be filed on grounds of material irregularity or fraud committed in relation to such a liquidation order.
(5) An appeal against an order for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process passed under sub-section (2) of section 54-O, may be filed on grounds of material irregularity or fraud committed in relation to such an order.]
Section 61, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act 31 of 2016).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-7.pdf 2021-10-22. CA 3327/2020. Chandrachud reportable. DATE-CHECK false positive (2020-07-13 NCLAT / 2018-04-25 / 2011-03-15 fact dates); body is the named IBC 61(2) appeal-clock reportable. Isolate: the 30+15 day IBC 61(2) clock runs from pronouncement, not from when the order is ‘made available’; IBC overrides Companies Act 421(3). Appeal vehicle is s.62 — do not pad 62. Skip review twin SCIN010285612021. Map IBC 61 only.
On this section: IBC 61(2)’s 30+15 day NCLAT appeal clock runs from pronouncement, not from when the order is made available; IBC overrides Companies Act 421(3) (V. Nagarajan). Do not pad IBC 62.
-
Raman Prakash Mangla vs Anuj Jain
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Adjudicating Authority has limited jurisdiction in approving a resolution plan, circumscribed by Sections 30(2) and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Authority cannot interfere with the commercial aspects of the decision taken by the Committee of Creditors. If the Adjudicating Authority finds shortcomings in the resolution plan vis-à-vis the specified parameters of keeping the corporate debtor as a going concern, maximizing the value of its assets, and taking care of interests of all stakeholders, it must send the plan back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration, not modify the plan itself. Payment to dissenting financial creditors must be in monetary terms, not in kind or through transfer of equity or land. Once homebuyers as a class vote in favor of a resolution plan through their authorized representative, individual homebuyers cannot challenge the plan as dissenting creditors or aggrieved persons. The INR 750 crores deposited by the holding company pursuant to Supreme Court orders in Chitra Sharma is the property of the holding company, not the corporate debtor, and cannot be appropriated by the corporate debtor or the resolution applicant.
On this section: Appeal against order of Adjudicating Authority
-
Rajesh Gupta vs Nbcc (india) LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction in approving a resolution plan is limited to verifying compliance with the mandatory requirements specified in Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Authority cannot modify the commercial terms of a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors by the requisite majority (66% or more of voting share). If the Authority finds that the resolution plan does not meet the specified parameters (keeping corporate debtor as going concern, maximizing asset value, protecting stakeholder interests), it must remit the plan back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration rather than modifying it itself. The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is non-justiciable and cannot be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Authority on equitable or quantitative grounds. Dissenting financial creditors must receive payment in monetary terms (cash) equivalent to their liquidation value, not in kind through equity or land transfers. The INR 750 crores deposited by the holding company JAL pursuant to Supreme Court orders in the Chitra Sharma case remains the property of JAL and cannot be treated as an asset of the corporate debtor JIL for purposes of the resolution plan. Homebuyers as a class are bound by the decision of their authorized representative in the Committee of Creditors under Section 25A(3A), and individual homebuyers cannot maintain separate challenges to the resolution plan. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prevails over the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 in case of conflict, though both statutes must be interpreted harmoniously. Concession Agreements with statutory authorities are not statutory contracts and their material terms cannot be modified without the consent of the other contracting party. Security interests not avoided under Section 43 of the Code cannot be unilaterally extinguished through a resolution plan.
On this section: Appeal to Appellate Tribunal; grounds limited to contravention of law, material irregularity, non-compliance with Board specifications
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… It has been held: - > "75. The provision stipulates that "any person" who is aggrieved by the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal before the Supreme Court within the prescribed limitation period. Similar language is used in section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which provides for appeals to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal from orders of the National Company Law Tribunal. The use of the phrase "any person aggrieved" indicates that there is no rigid locus requirement to institute an appeal challenging an order of the …
-
… It has been held: - > "75. The provision stipulates that "any person" who is aggrieved by the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal before the Supreme Court within the prescribed limitation period. Similar language is used in section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which provides for appeals to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal from orders of the National Company Law Tribunal. The use of the phrase "any person aggrieved" indicates that there is no rigid locus requirement to institute an appeal challenging an order of the …
-
… I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the 1st respondent. 10. The prime arguments of the petitioners are based on non-application of mind by the National Company Law Tribunal and the law of limitation. Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013, any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The : 7 : petitioners, …
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 61
What have the courts held on Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. (22 Oct 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: IBC 61(2)’s 30+15 day NCLAT appeal clock runs from pronouncement, not from when the order is made available; IBC overrides Companies Act 421(3) (V. Nagarajan). Do not pad IBC 62. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court.
How do I find court cases under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 61, section 61 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. (22 Oct 2021).
What should I read with Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 31 (Approval of resolution plan), section 33 (Initiation of liquidation), section 54 (Dissolution of corporate debtor), section 54L (Approval of resolution plan), and on 1 further provision, so none of them can safely be read on its own. 5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. One instrument names it without being made under it, most recently The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019 (2019).
When was Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code enacted?
Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, cited as Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 61, was enacted on 28 May 2016 as Act 31 of 2016. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 240. Power to make regulations2349 words
- 5. Definitions2326 words
- 3. Definitions1381 words
- 29A. Person not eligible to be resolution applicant1152 words
- 239. Power to make rules963 words
- 196. Powers and functions of Board942 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.