How to Obtain and Execute Certified Copies of NCLT Orders

A certified copy of a National Company Law Tribunal order must be applied for on the day it is pronounced, and executing that order against a defaulting party proceeds under section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 and rule 56 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. The Supreme Court held in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. that limitation for an appeal runs from pronouncement, not from receipt of a copy, so a party that waits for a free copy before applying loses the days in between. This article traces that machinery and where delay costs rights that cannot be recovered.

What Does Rule 50 Entitle a Party to, and What Does It Cost?

Rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (the NCLT Rules) runs to a single sentence. The Registry is to send a certified copy of the final order to the parties concerned free of cost, and certified copies may be made available with cost as per the Schedule of Fees in all other cases. Section 420(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 (the Companies Act) requires the Tribunal to send a copy of every order to all the parties concerned, and rule 150(3) of the NCLT Rules provides that a certified copy of every order passed by the Tribunal shall be given to the parties. A party to the proceeding is therefore entitled to a certified copy without paying for it.

Who Has to Pay for a Certified Copy Under the Schedule of Fees?

Entry 31 of the Schedule of Fees prices a certified true copy of a final order at five rupees per page, and its wording is specific: the charge applies to copies passed to parties other than the concerned parties under rule 50, which is to say strangers to the record. Failing to apply for a copy has cost appellants their appeals.

The Certified Copy Application Is a Limitation Document

Rule 22(2) of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 (the NCLAT Rules) requires every appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. That requirement wires the copy machinery into the limitation clock, and the wiring is where rights are lost.

V. Nagarajan and the Rule That Time Runs From Pronouncement

The order under challenge in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. [(2022) 2 SCC 244] was pronounced on 31 December 2019 and uploaded only on 12 March 2020. The appellant said it had asked for a free copy, never received one, and appealed on 8 June 2020 seeking exemption from producing a certified copy.

The Supreme Court held that sections 61(1) and 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) consciously omit the formula used in section 421(3) of the Companies Act, under which time runs from the date a copy of the order is made available to the person aggrieved. Under the Code, limitation runs from pronouncement. Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 excludes the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order appealed against, but only for a party which applied; awaiting a free copy does not stop the clock. Rule 22(2) binds litigants under the Code, and although rule 14 of the NCLAT Rules allows a tribunal to excuse a procedural requirement in the interest of substantial justice, that discretion is no automatic exception for a litigant who made no effort to move. Applying for a certified copy, the Court said, is not merely a technical step in computing limitation; it is evidence of diligence.

The 2024 Clarification and the 2026 Reaffirmation

In State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd. [2024 INSC 774] a section 7 application was rejected by the NCLT on 30 October 2023. The bank appealed on 2 December 2023, three days past thirty days but inside the fifteen day condonable window, annexing the free copy issued by the Registry. The NCLAT bench split on whether that satisfied rule 22(2), the third member holding that it did not. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that rule 50 places the free and the paid certified copy on the same footing, and condoned the delay.

That settles the character of the document and leaves the diligence rule exactly where it stood, as the Supreme Court confirmed in May 2026 in Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association v. M. Lalitha [Civil Appeal Nos. 14439-14440 of 2025]. There an appeal against an order approving a resolution plan was e-filed on the last condonable day without a certified copy, and the copy was applied for only months after the appeal had been refiled. The Court held it wholly incompetent rather than merely defective: filing without even applying for a certified copy within limitation practically meant there was no appeal in the eyes of law, and the latitude usually shown to delay in refiling cannot rescue an appeal that fails the foundational requirements. Annexing the free copy is not by itself fatal; sitting still is.

What Diligence Looks Like on the Day of Pronouncement

Someone must know the outcome the same day. Where an order is not pronounced when the hearing concludes, time runs from the date it is in fact pronounced or uploaded, so a party that stops watching the cause list after the final hearing loses days it cannot recover.

The copy application should go in that day or on the next working day, with the dated acknowledgment placed on the matter file. That acknowledgment is what buys the section 12(2) exclusion. An appellant who applies on day two and receives the copy on day twenty is protected for eighteen days; one who applies on day thirty is protected for none of them.

Nor should the appeal wait for a slow copy. Rule 31 of the NCLAT Rules contemplates an interlocutory application for exemption from producing a copy of the order appealed against, supported by affidavit. No such application was moved in Angelwoods, and its absence was fatal.

The Copy and Filing Sequence, Step by Step

Step	Rule or section	Timing	Consequence of missing it
Order pronounced	Rule 150(1) and (2), NCLT Rules	Not later than thirty days from the final hearing	Limitation begins on pronouncement whether or not the party attends
Free certified copy issued to parties	Rule 50 and rule 150(3), NCLT Rules; section 420(3), Companies Act	No period prescribed	The free copy counts as a certified copy, but waiting for it does not stop time
Apply for a certified copy	Rule 50, NCLT Rules; section 12(2), Limitation Act, 1963	Same day, and in any event within the appeal period	Preparation time is not excluded and the appeal may be held incompetent
Annex the certified copy to the appeal	Rule 22(2), NCLAT Rules	On filing	Appeal treated as incompetent unless exemption is sought
Apply for exemption or condonation	Rule 31, NCLAT Rules	Filed with the appeal, supported by affidavit	Registry raises defects; uncured defects go to the Registrar under rule 26
Apply for execution	Section 424(3), Companies Act; rule 56, NCLT Rules, Form NCLT.8	No period prescribed by the NCLT Rules	Recovery stalls, and a later moratorium bars execution altogether
Rectify a clerical error	Rule 154, NCLT Rules, Form NCLT.9	Two years from the date of the final order	The error stands and cannot be corrected on this route

Turning a Favourable Order Into Recovery Under Section 424(3)

Section 424(3) of the Companies Act provides that any order made by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal may be enforced by that Tribunal in the same manner as if it were a decree made by a court in a suit pending before it. The Eleventh Schedule to the Code extended sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 424 expressly to proceedings under the Code, but sub-section (3) was left unqualified as to the statute under which the order was made. The order is a deemed decree for execution, not a decree within section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

How Is an NCLT Order Executed Under Rule 57?

Rule 56 of the NCLT Rules requires the holder of an order seeking execution to apply in Form NCLT.8. Rule 57(1) obliges the Tribunal to issue process for execution in the form provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and rule 57(2) permits it, after considering the respondent's objections, to issue an attachment or recovery warrant. Order XXI of that Code supplies the working framework.

None of this is self-executing; the Tribunal will not identify assets. An order-holder who cannot state which bank accounts, receivables or immovable properties are to be attached, and where, ends up with an order and no money.

Orders That Cannot Be Executed Because of How They Were Drafted

Section 424(3) reaches operative directions and nothing else. In Artha Energy Resources LLP v. Tecso Projects Ltd. the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, dismissed an execution petition founded on an order disposing of an insolvency petition as withdrawn in view of a settlement, holding that an order merely recording the fact of a settlement, without embodying its terms in the operative directions, does not take on the character of a decree. That is a drafting lesson. Where a matter settles, the payment schedule and the consequences of default belong in the operative part of the order, not in an annexed agreement the order mentions.

When the Order Is Ignored: Contempt Under Section 425

Section 425 of the Companies Act gives the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of themselves as a High Court has, exercisable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, with a reference in that Act to a High Court read as including the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal.

The sentencing power looks modest. Section 12(1) of that Act provides for simple imprisonment of up to six months, a fine of up to two thousand rupees, or both, with remission available on an apology made to the satisfaction of the court. A two thousand rupee fine deters nobody. Section 12(3) carries the weight: on a finding of civil contempt, where the court considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and imprisonment is necessary, it may direct detention in a civil prison.

Why the Responsible Business Head Must Know the Same Day

Section 12(4) provides that where the contemnor in respect of an undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who at the time the contempt was committed was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business is deemed guilty along with the company, subject to a defence of absence of knowledge or the exercise of all due diligence to prevent it. The defence depends on what those named individuals knew and did. A legal team that circulates an adverse order to the responsible business head the day it is passed, records the compliance steps taken and minutes the decision has built that defence in advance. One that learns of the order a month later has not.

Why Enforcement Is Harder in Insolvency Matters

Section 14 of the Code prohibits, during the moratorium, the institution or continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor, including the execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority. An order-holder whose judgment debtor is admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process before execution is complete loses the route and becomes a claimant. The pending application confers no priority; it converts into a claim submitted to the resolution professional and ranks by class. Where a counterparty is visibly distressed, an execution application pressed early is worth far more than a well-argued one filed after admission.

Directions Against Suspended Management and Other Personnel

Orders directing individuals to act follow a different path. Section 19(2) of the Code allows a resolution professional faced with non-cooperation from the personnel of the corporate debtor, its promoters or any other person to apply to the Tribunal for the necessary directions. Non-compliance returns to the same bench, and section 235A supplies a residual penalty for contravention of the Code where no specific punishment is provided, of not less than one lakh and up to two crore rupees.

Enforcement against an individual who has decided not to comply is nonetheless slow. Plan a sequence, a direction first and then a contempt or penalty application, and ensure each records precisely what was directed, what was served and when, and what was not done. Vague pleading is the commonest reason these stall.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the free copy sent by the NCLT Registry count as a certified copy for an appeal to the NCLAT?

Yes. In State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd. the Supreme Court held that rule 50 of the NCLT Rules places the free and paid certified copy on the same footing, so annexing the free copy does not by itself make your appeal defective. It does not follow that you may wait for it: if you never applied, you cannot use the wait to explain delay.

What if the Registry takes three weeks to issue the certified copy?

Time after you apply is excluded under section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963; time before you apply is not. Apply at once, keep the dated acknowledgment, and if the copy is still unavailable as the period runs out, file the appeal with a rule 31 application for exemption, exhibiting your copy application.

How is a money order of the NCLT actually enforced?

By an execution application to the same Tribunal in Form NCLT.8 under rule 56 of the NCLT Rules. Under rule 57 the Tribunal issues process for execution in the form provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and may issue an attachment or recovery warrant, or send the order to the court where the registered office is situated.

Can a director be held personally liable for the company ignoring a Tribunal order?

Under section 425 of the Companies Act read with section 12(4) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, where a company is guilty of contempt in respect of an undertaking given to a court, every person in charge of and responsible to it for the conduct of its business is deemed guilty as well, unless that person proves absence of knowledge or all due diligence. Document that defence as events happen.

The judgment debtor has been admitted into CIRP. What happens to the execution?

Execution against the corporate debtor is barred by the moratorium under section 14 of the Code. The order becomes the basis of a claim filed with the resolution professional in the prescribed form and treated according to your class of creditor. A pending execution application gives you no priority.

How much does a certified copy of an NCLT order cost?

A party to the proceeding receives the first certified copy of a final order free of cost under rule 50 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, read with section 420(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. Entry 31 of the Schedule of Fees prices a certified true copy at five rupees per page, but that charge applies only to copies supplied to a stranger to the record, not to a party. A party needing an additional or replacement copy should still expect to pay the five-rupees-a-page rate for anything beyond the free copy issued under rule 50.

What is the time limit for filing an appeal to the NCLAT?

Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 allows forty five days from the date of the order, extendable by a further forty five days on sufficient cause shown. Where the order arises under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, sections 61(1) and 61(2) instead give thirty days extendable by fifteen days. Rule 22(2) of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 requires the appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the order, so the appeal period and the copy application should be tracked together, not separately.

What happens if a Tribunal order does not record the terms of a settlement?

An order that merely notes a settlement without embodying its terms in the operative directions is not executable as a decree under section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, as the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench held in Artha Energy Resources LLP v. Tecso Projects Ltd. Where a matter settles, the payment schedule and the consequences of default should be recorded in the operative part of the order itself rather than left to an annexed agreement that the order only mentions, so that the order can later be executed directly.

Can a company be held in contempt for ignoring an NCLT order?

Yes. Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 gives the Tribunal the same jurisdiction over contempt of itself that a High Court exercises under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 12(1) of that Act allows simple imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to two thousand rupees, or both, and section 12(3) permits detention in a civil prison where a fine will not meet the ends of justice. Section 12(4) extends liability to every person in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the time, subject to a defence of absence of knowledge or due diligence.

Does an execution application survive if the judgment debtor enters insolvency?

No, not as an execution. Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bars the execution of any judgment, decree or order against the corporate debtor once the moratorium takes effect on admission of an insolvency application. A pending execution application does not carry forward or confer priority; it converts into a claim filed with the resolution professional and is treated according to the claimant's class of creditor in the distribution waterfall.

What form is used to apply for execution of an NCLT order?

Form NCLT.8, filed under rule 56 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. Rule 57(1) requires the Tribunal to issue process for execution in the form provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and rule 57(2) permits it, after considering the respondent's objections, to issue an attachment or recovery warrant. Order XXI of that Code supplies the working framework, but the Tribunal does not identify assets on its own, so the applicant must specify which bank accounts, receivables or immovable properties are to be attached.

Can a clerical error in an NCLT order be corrected without a fresh appeal?

Yes, within limits. Rule 154 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 allows correction of a clerical or arithmetical error in Form NCLT.9, but only within two years from the date of the final order. It does not permit the Tribunal to revisit the substance of its decision, so a party disputing the reasoning or outcome of an order, rather than a clerical slip in recording it, has to pursue an appeal instead.

Is a director personally protected from contempt liability by not knowing about an order?

Only if the director can show it. Section 12(4) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deems every person in charge of and responsible to the company for its business guilty along with the company, but it allows a defence of proving absence of knowledge of the contempt or that all due diligence was exercised to prevent it. Circulating an adverse Tribunal order to the responsible business head on the day it is passed, and recording the compliance steps taken, is what makes that defence available later; it does not arise automatically.

Vikrant D. Shetty | Vikrant D. Shetty leads the Insolvency and Arbitration Practice at the law firm Vikrant D. Shetty & Associates, Advocates & Solicitors which advises financial creditors, operational creditors, and corporate debtors in proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, including applications for execution of Tribunal orders and appeals to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, and represents parties in domestic and international commercial arbitrations seated in India and abroad, including enforcement and challenge proceedings before the Bombay High Court.

Related reading: IBC versus SARFAESI: which route delivers faster asset realisation.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please seek direct consultation with an advocate.