In a significant verdict safeguarding litigants against digital portal glitches, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that an aggrieved party cannot be left remediless when an appeal is filed past the limitation deadline solely due to technical defects in a tribunal’s e-filing system. Setting aside an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that had dismissed an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for a one-day delay caused by failed OTP deliveries, the apex court ruled that tribunals must invoke the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) and treat the date of the first bona fide filing attempt as the actual date of presentation.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from corporate insolvency resolution proceedings concerning Rolta India Limited. On December 15, 2025, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, approved a resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Private Limited. Aggrieved by this approval, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II sought to challenge the order by filing an appeal before the NCLAT under Section 61(1) of the IBC.
Under Section 61(2) of the IBC, an appeal must be filed within 30 days, while the proviso allows a further extendable window of 15 days upon demonstrating sufficient cause. The 30-day period lapsed on January 14, 2026, and the outer 15-day condonable period was due to expire on January 29, 2026.
To comply with the deadline, counsel for the appellant attempted to e-file the appeal on January 28, 2026. However, technical defects on the NCLAT’s e-filing portal prevented the filing. The appellant made further efforts on January 29, 2026, but the NCLAT Registry informed the appellant that a backend defect was taking time to repair. Consequently, the appeal could only be successfully uploaded on January 30, 2026—one day beyond the outer 45-day condonable timeframe.
Proceedings Before the NCLAT
The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of the one-day delay, explaining the technical breakdown. On May 21, 2026, the NCLAT rejected the application and dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
The NCLAT held that limitation runs from the date of pronouncement of the order, relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited & Ors. and V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Ors. Citing National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Anil Kohli, RP for Dunar Foods Ltd. and Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors., the appellate tribunal concluded that it lacked statutory authority to condone any delay exceeding the 30 + 15 day limit stipulated under Section 61(2) of the IBC.
Arguments and Findings Before the Supreme Court
Challenging the dismissal before the Supreme Court, the appellant highlighted the technical circumstances beyond its control, while learned counsel for the respondent resolution professional appeared on caveat.
A crucial piece of record before the Supreme Court was a report dated May 6, 2026, submitted by the NCLAT Registry itself pursuant to an order of the tribunal. The report verified that the appellant had made persistent attempts to e-file starting from January 28, 2026, but failed OTP deliveries prevented successful presentation until January 30, 2026.
Describing the peculiar nature of the rejection, Justice Datta observed:
“No opposing counsel defeated the appellant. Rather, failed ‘one-time password’ (OTP) deliveries ensured that the appellant was shown the door, thereby sealing its fate.”
The Court’s Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court affirmed the established principle that statutory timelines under the IBC must be strictly observed and accepted that Section 61(2) confers no discretionary power to condone delays beyond 45 days. However, the Court distinguished the precedents relied upon by the NCLAT. In National Spot Exchange Ltd., individual hardship was held insufficient to bypass statutory limits, whereas Tata Steel Ltd. involved a litigant acting upon an incorrect personal understanding of the law.
Referring to the three-judge bench decision in Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, the Court noted:
“It is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts.”
Framing the core question, the bench observed:
“should a litigant be shown the door at the very first instance due to e-filing of an appeal beyond the statutorily condonable period, particularly when such a filing has been delayed for bona fide reasons beyond the litigant’s control and when the fault was entirely at the end of the Registry of the NCLAT? We think not!”
The Court stressed that as the judiciary becomes increasingly digitised, scrutiny of delays arising from technical difficulties beyond a litigant’s control is critical. Clarifying how limitation operates against digital courts, the bench held:
“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.”
The bench observed that the appellant’s plea was not strictly one for condonation of delay, but rather a request to exempt the period during which the e-filing system remained non-functional. The Court held that principles flowing from Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be invoked, and referenced the Constitution Bench decision in A.R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, where actus curiae neminem gravabit was applied to rectify institutional prejudice.
The Court held:
“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. Absent such direction, it would tantamount to making the litigant suffer for the actus curiae (act of the court).”
Decision
Holding that the NCLAT committed an error that resulted in a miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the NCLAT’s order dated May 21, 2026.
The Court restored both the appeal (Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 503 of 2026) and the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 1951 of 2026) to the file of the NCLAT. The tribunal was directed to dispose of the condonation application at the earliest to determine whether the appellant showed sufficient cause for the delay beyond the initial 30-day period. The Court directed that if decided in the appellant’s favour, the appeal shall be registered and adjudicated in accordance with law. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II vs. Ms. Mamta Binani & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of Diary No. 42931 of 2026)
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Date: September 10, 2026
