Litigant Can’t Be Rendered Remediless Due To Technical Glitch In E-Filing System: Supreme Court Restores Appeal Before NCLAT
The appeal before the Supreme Court was carried from an order of the NCLAT where the appellant pointed out a technical glitch in the e-filing system.
Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court
While restoring an NCLAT appeal, the Supreme Court has held that a litigant cannot be rendered remediless on the specious ground that the court/tribunal has no power to condone the delay when the system of the court/tribunal fails to receive the papers due to a backend failure/technical glitch in the e-filing system.
The appeal before the Apex Court carried from an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, was belatedly presented beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 45 (forty-five) days but within the condonable limit of 15 (fifteen) days.
The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held, “However, given the nature of the system fault that impeded the efiling of the appeal by the appellant and that the day’s delay could hardly be attributed to it, the NCLAT ought to have invoked the higher principle of “actus curiae neminem gravabit”. Law is well-settled that limitation runs against a litigant only when the court/tribunal is open and functional, in the sense that it is capable of receiving the papers pertaining to the lis sought to be presented by a party aggrieved. When the system of the court/tribunal fails to receive the papers, which are sought to be presented bona fide and within the prescribed time, the litigant cannot be rendered remediless on the specious ground that the court/tribunal has no power to condone the delay.”
AOR Ajit Sharma represented the Appellant while Advocate Sandeep Bajaj represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
A resolution plan (read with the financial proposal dated 22nd April, 2024 and clarificatory addendum dated 17th May, 2024) submitted by Ashdan Properties Private Limited in respect of Rolta India Limited was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai. Aggrieved by the order of the NCLT approving the resolution plan, the appellant e-filed its appeal before the NCLAT one day after the permissible condonable period of delay under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
It was the case of the appellant that the grace period of 15 (fifteen) days would have expired on January 29, 2026. To meet the deadline, the appellant’s counsel attempted to e-file the appeal on January 28, 2026; however, due to technical defects in the NCLAT's e-filing portal, the appeal could not be e-filed that day. The Appellant contended that on January 29, 2026, too, it did not leave any stone unturned to file the appeal, but the Registry of the NCLAT informed the appellant that there was a technical defect on the backend, which was taking time to repair, The appeal could not be e-filed on January 29, 2026, either. Finally, on January 30, 2026, the appeal came to be e-filed. Considering that the circumstances were beyond its control, the appellant prayed that the application for condonation of delay be allowed. However, the NCLAT rejected its application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the appeal stood dismissed as time-barred.
The NCLAT observed that the extendable period of 15 (fifteen) days, as per the proviso to Section 61(2) of the IBC, expired on January 29, 2026, and it had no power to condone any delay in filing of an appeal beyond the 30 + 15 day timeline as stipulated in Section 61(2) of the IBC.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, stated, “There is no gainsaying that the timelines set out in the IBC must be strictly adhered to, for reasons that need no elaboration here. Nonetheless, every case has to be viewed from the appropriate perspective.”
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the appellant had undertaken the requisite efforts to e-file the appeal starting from January 28, 2026; still, due to technical issues with OTP delivery, the appeal could not be e-filed until January 30, 2026. “In the current age, as the judiciary becomes increasingly digitised, scrutinising any delay due to technical difficulties beyond the litigant’s control is all the more relevant”, it added.
The Bench stated, “Though the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may not be applicable to proceedings under the IBC, principles flowing from Order VII Rule 6 thereof can certainly be invoked in an appropriate case. Acknowledging that it is a system failure at its end, which requires correction, and to direct that the appeal be registered as filed within the outer condonable period of limitation by treating the date of the first bona fide attempt to e-file as the date of presentation, is what the justice of the case required.”
Considering that the NCLAT was not precluded from invoking the “actus curiae neminem gravabit” principle in the absence of any remedy in Section 61, or in any of the other provisions of the IBC, the Bench held that the NCLAT committed an error by passing the impugned order, which was occasioned miscarriage of justice.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order of the NCLAT. The Bench restored the file of the NCLAT for reconsideration as to whether the appellant did show sufficient cause to condone the delay beyond 30 (thirty) days as stipulated in Section 61(2) of the IBC. “The NCLAT may dispose of I.A. No. 1951 of 2026 at the earliest”, it added.
Cause Title: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1003)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Ajit Sharma, Advocates Kanchan Kumar Singh, Yuvrajsinh C. Solanki, Anant Ram Mishra, Lareb Habib Ansari, Akshat Sharma, Amrit Keshri Nandan Pradhan, Shweta Jain
Respondent: Advocates Sandeep Bajaj, Aakanksha Nehra, Ananya Pratap Singh, Shubham Jaiswal, AOR M/s Lawfic