The Supreme Court has held that a litigant cannot lose an appellate remedy because of an NCLAT E-Filing Technical Glitch. The Court said this applies when the tribunal’s own system causes the delay. It restored an appeal that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, had dismissed as time-barred.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set aside the NCLAT order. The Court found that the appellant had made bona fide attempts to file the appeal within time. However, technical problems with the NCLAT’s e-filing portal prevented successful filing.
Dispute Over NCLT-Approved Resolution Plan
The dispute arose from a resolution plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, on December 15, 20225.
Aggrieved by the approval, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II decided to challenge the order before the NCLAT.
Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) provides a 30-day period for filing an appeal. The NCLAT may extend this period by another 15 days if the appellant shows sufficient cause. It cannot extend the period beyond a total of 45 days.
Limitation begins from the date of pronouncement of the NCLT order. Therefore, the 45-day period in this case expired on January 29, 2026.
Appellant Faced Problems With E-Filing
The appellant first attempted to e-file the appeal on January 28, 2026. Technical defects in the NCLAT portal prevented the filing.
The appellant tried again on January 29, 2026. This was the final day of the condonable period. However, the Registry informed the appellant that it was repairing a backend technical defect.
The appellant finally e-filed the appeal on January 30, 2026. By then, the statutory 45-day period had expired by one day.
NCLAT Dismissed Appeal As Time-Barred
The appellant sought condonation of the delay before the NCLAT. The tribunal rejected the application and dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
The NCLAT relied on Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistra ITCL (India) Limited & Ors. (2023) and V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Limited and Ors. (2021).
It also referred to National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Anil Kohli (2021) and RP for Dunar Foods Ltd., and Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors.
Based on these decisions, the NCLAT held that it had no power to condone a delay beyond the 30+15 day period under Section 61(2).
The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Distinguishes Earlier Cases
The Supreme Court found that the precedents relied upon by the NCLAT involved different factual circumstances. Therefore, they did not apply to the present case.
The Court referred to Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey. It reiterated that an additional or different fact can substantially alter the conclusion in two cases. This can happen even when courts apply the same legal principles to similar facts.
The Bench found no ignorance, hardship, laches or negligence on the appellant’s part. Instead, the delay resulted entirely from a defect in the NCLAT’s filing system.
Registry Report Confirms Technical Failure
The NCLAT Registry had submitted a report pursuant to an order of the tribunal.
The report confirmed the appellant’s bona fide attempts to e-file from January 28, 2026 onwards. It also confirmed that OTP delivery failures on the portal prevented successful filing.
The Supreme Court considered whether such circumstances should deprive a litigant of an appellate remedy.
The Bench answered the question in the negative. It found that the filing delay resulted from circumstances beyond the litigant’s control.
Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit Applies
The Supreme Court acknowledged the limitation imposed by Section 61(2) of the IBC. The provision does not empower the NCLAT to condone a delay beyond the prescribed 30+15 days.
However, the Court held that the NCLAT should have invoked the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit. The principle means that an act of the court shall prejudice no one.
The Court explained that limitation runs against a litigant when the court or tribunal remains open and functional. It must also be capable of receiving the documents presented by the litigant.
A different situation arises when the tribunal’s own system fails. A litigant who genuinely attempts to file documents within time cannot be left without a remedy because of that failure.
Exclusion Of Period Instead Of Condonation
The Supreme Court also clarified the nature of the relief sought by the appellant.
The appellant was not seeking condonation beyond the statutory period. Instead, it sought exclusion of the period during which the e-filing system remained non-functional.
Such exclusion would allow the NCLAT to treat the appeal as presented within the 45-day period.
The first bona fide filing attempt occurred before the limitation period expired. The NCLAT E-Filing Technical Glitch prevented the appellant from completing that process.
Court Refers To Order VII Rule 6 CPC
The Supreme Court also invoked the underlying principle of Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
The CPC does not strictly apply to proceedings under the IBC. However, the Court held that its principles may apply in an appropriate case.
The NCLAT could acknowledge that its own system had failed. It could then treat the first bona fide e-filing attempt as the date of presentation.
The Supreme Court found that the circumstances required such an approach. Otherwise, the litigant would suffer because of an actus curiae.
NCLAT Order Caused Miscarriage Of Justice
The Supreme Court concluded that the NCLAT had erred in dismissing the appeal.
The Bench noted that Section 61 and other IBC provisions did not prevent the NCLAT from applying actus curiae neminem gravabit. The principle could apply where the statute provided no other remedy for such a system failure.
The Court therefore held that the NCLAT’s order had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Supreme Court Restores Appeal
The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT order and allowed the appeal.
It restored the appeal before the NCLAT. The Court directed the tribunal to reconsider whether sufficient cause existed to condone the delay beyond the initial 30 days under Section 61(2) of the IBC.
The Supreme Court asked the NCLAT to dispose of the application at the earliest.
It also clarified that the NCLAT must register the appeal and decide it on merits in accordance with law.
