# In the matter of Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors.

> SC judgment dated 2025-05-07. Citation: TCN-2025-SC-00016. This is a civil appeal against the order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the National Company Law…

- **Court:** SC
- **Order date:** 7 May 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-SC-00016
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/tata-steel-ltd-vs-raj-kumar-banerjee-ors-c9895c44

## Summary

### Background

This is a civil appeal against the order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which allowed an interlocutory application filed by Respondent No. 1 seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The appellant, Tata Steel Ltd., is the successful resolution applicant for Rohit Ferro-Tech Limited (Corporate Debtor). Respondent No. 1, Raj Kumar Banerjee, is an erstwhile minority shareholder of the Corporate Debtor. The NCLT had approved the appellant's resolution plan on 07.04.2022. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against this order, along with an application for condonation of delay. The NCLAT condoned the delay, leading to the present appeal by Tata Steel Ltd.

## Facts

1. The appellant, Tata Steel Ltd., is the successful resolution applicant for Rohit Ferro-Tech Limited (Corporate Debtor).
2. Respondent No. 1, Raj Kumar Banerjee, is an erstwhile minority shareholder of the Corporate Debtor.
3. The NCLT approved the appellant's resolution plan on 07.04.2022.
4. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against the NCLT's order, along with an application for condonation of delay.
5. The NCLAT condoned the delay, leading to the present appeal by Tata Steel Ltd.
6. The appellant argues that the appeal was filed beyond the statutorily permissible period.
7. The respondent contends that the delay was justified due to a lack of timely disclosure of the resolution plan approval.
8. The intimation of the approval was given to the listing departments of the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 was within the prescribed limitation period of 30 …

**Ratio:** The limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 61(2) IBC commences from the

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Company Secretary of the Corporate Debtor duly informed the

…

**Interpretation:** Section 61(2) of the IBC prescribes a strict timeline for filing appeals. The

…

**Application:** In this case, the limitation period commenced on 07.04.2022 and expired on

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** R. MAHA…; J.B. PARD…
- **Appellants:** TATA STEE…
- **Respondents:** Rohit Ferro Tech…; RAJ KUMAR B…
- **Other parties:** Over Tu…

## Timeline

- **2022-04-07 — NCLT Ord…**: NCLT approved the resolution plan submitted by Tata Steel Ltd. for Rohit Ferro-Tech…
- **2022-04-08 — Disclosure of…**: Intimation of the approval was given to the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/tata-steel-ltd-vs-raj-kumar-banerjee-ors-c9895c44