Expeditious disposal of applications
Section 64 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 deals with expeditious disposal of applications. Where an application is not disposed of or an order is not passed within the period specified in this Code, the National Company Law Tribunal or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, shall record the reasons for not doing so within the period so specified; The Act was enacted on 28 May 2016.
(1) Where an application is not disposed of or an order is not passed within the period specified in this Code, the National Company Law Tribunal or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, shall record the reasons for not doing so within the period so specified; and the President of the National Company Law Tribunal or the Chairperson of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, may, after taking into account the reasons so recorded, extend the period specified in the Act but not exceeding ten days.
(2) No injunction shall be granted by any court, tribunal or authority in respect of any action taken, or to be taken, in pursuance of any power conferred on the National Company Law Tribunal or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal under this Code.
Section 64, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act 31 of 2016).
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.
-
SDS Infracon Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Pioneer Urban / Landmark batch (DATE VERIFIED Judgement 2019-08-09, order-101.pdf): IBC (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 treating real-estate allottees as financial creditors under s.5(8)(f) and providing CoC representation via ss.21(6A)/25A is constitutionally valid under Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A; allottee advances have commercial effect of borrowing (time value of money); Code and RERA are complementary. Timeline/extension language under s.64 is treated as directory in the Code’s scheme (reasons + limited extension), not as defeating allottee CIRP rights.
On this section: s.64 expeditious disposal — directory nature of NCLT/NCLAT timelines and limited extension power.
-
Landmark Apartments Pvt. LTD vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018, which deems allottees of real estate projects as financial creditors under Section 5(8)(f) and provides for their representation on Committee of Creditors through authorized representatives under Sections 21(6A) and 25A, is constitutionally valid under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The amendment does not violate Article 14 as allottees, who finance their own apartment projects and provide consideration for time value of money through installment-based advance payments, constitute a rationally distinct class of financial creditors similar to debenture holders and fixed deposit holders, with intelligible differentia bearing nexus to the Code's object of maximizing creditor recovery and protecting stakeholders in corporate rehabilitation. The amendment does not infringe Article 19(1)(g) as it is a reasonable restriction in public interest for protecting millions of home buyers with substantial invested amounts. The amendment does not deprive developers of property without constitutional authority as it operates through valid legal process respecting due process and defenses. The explanation to Section 5(8)(f) merely clarifies that allottees already fell within the definition's ambit and is not substantively enlarging the scope. The classification does not offend the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide as allottees are recognized as financial creditors based on genuine financing characteristics. The Code and RERA can harmoniously coexist as parallel remedies serving different purposes, with Code taking primacy due to its later non-obstante clause. Parliament's legislative judgment in treating allottees as financial creditors is entitled to judicial deference as an economic experiment within free play in joints doctrine.
On this section: NCLT President or NCLAT Chairperson may extend periods prescribed under statute; directory nature of timelines
-
Spaze Towers Private Limited vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 classifying allottees of real estate projects as financial creditors and allowing them to trigger insolvency proceedings against developers are constitutionally valid. These amendments do not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6), or 300-A of the Constitution. Allottees constitute a distinct class of financial creditors with intelligible differentia from operational creditors due to their role in financing real estate projects through installment payments, their vital interest in the company's well-being, and their similarity to other individual financial creditors like deposit and debenture holders. The amendments have rational nexus with the Code's objects of maximizing asset value and rehabilitating corporate debtors. Section 5(8)(f) as originally enacted already subsumed allottees within the definition of financial debt as a residuary provision covering transactions having the commercial effect of borrowing. The explanation added by the Amendment Act is merely clarificatory. The Code and RERA provide concurrent remedies and must be read harmoniously with the Code prevailing in case of conflict. Representation of allottees through authorized representatives under Section 21(6A) and 25A is constitutionally valid. The legislature has free play in the joints when enacting economic legislation and courts must accord deference to such experimentation.
On this section: Discretionary extension of timeline not exceeding 10 days is also directory in nature
-
Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt. LTD vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Real estate allottees are 'financial creditors' within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as they advance money against consideration for the time value of money to finance real estate construction projects. The Explanation to Section 5(8)(f) inserted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018, is constitutionally valid as it is clarificatory of the original provision's language and does not infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 300-A of the Constitution. Allottees are entitled to trigger insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Code against real estate developers, and their inclusion as financial creditors does not violate principles of reasonable classification or legislative objects. The Code and RERA operate harmoniously in different spheres providing concurrent remedies to home buyers.
On this section: The Court notes this extension provision is also directory, not mandatory.
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.
Questions about Section 64
What have the courts held on Section 64 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
SDS Infracon Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (09 Aug 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.64 expeditious disposal — directory nature of NCLT/NCLAT timelines and limited extension power. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court.
How do I find court cases under Section 64 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 64, section 64 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, section 64 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. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with SDS Infracon Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (09 Aug 2019).
When was Section 64 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code enacted?
Section 64 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, cited as Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 64, 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 16 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.