NCLAT E-Filing Glitch Caused One-Day Delay: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Dismissing IBC Appeal As Time-Barred

The Supreme court has held that a litigant cannot be made to suffer when a court or tribunal's e-filing system prevents papers from being filed despite a bona fide attempt within the prescribed limitation period.

“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,” a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu observed.

The court held that the period for which the e-filing system was non-functional could be exempted from the limitation period. It also held that the first bona fide attempt to e-file could be treated as the date of presentation.

Holding so, the top court set aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's May 21, 2026, order. The order had rejected the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II's application seeking condonation of a one-day delay and consequently dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

The court restored the appeal and the application before the NCLAT. It directed the tribunal to reconsider whether sufficient cause existed to condone the delay beyond the initial 30-day period.

The matter arose from a December 15, 2025, order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai. The NCLT had approved a resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Private Limited in respect of Rolta India Limited. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II challenged the approval before the NCLAT.

Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 requires an appeal against an NCLT order to be filed before the NCLAT within 30 days of the order's pronouncement. The NCLAT can allow a further 15 days if sufficient cause is shown. This makes 45 days the maximum period contemplated under Section 61(2).

In this case, the 30-day period ended on January 14, 2026. The additional 15-day period ended on January 29.

The appellant's counsel attempted to e-file the appeal on January 28. Technical problems with the NCLAT portal prevented the filing that day. On January 29, the Registry informed the appellant that a backend technical defect was being repaired.

The appeal was eventually e-filed on January 30, one day beyond the 45-day period. The appellant sought to explain the delay by pointing to the technical problems with the NCLAT's e-filing system.

The NCLAT rejected the application for condonation of delay. It consequently dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The tribunal held that Section 61(2) did not give it the power to condone a delay beyond the 30-day period and the additional 15 days permitted by the provision.

The Supreme court agreed with the NCLAT on this point. Section 61(2) does not give the tribunal power to condone a delay beyond 45 days.

The court, however, found that the facts of the case warranted different treatment. The delay was not caused by the appellant's ignorance of the law, negligence, laches, or any other fault attributable to it. The NCLAT Registry's own report recorded that the appellant had made the requisite efforts to e-file the appeal from January 28. Technical issues with OTP delivery prevented the filing until January 30.

“As the judiciary becomes increasingly digitised, scrutinising any delay due to technical difficulties beyond the litigant's control is all the more relevant,” the court observed.

The court then considered the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit. The principle means that an act of the court should prejudice no one.

The court observed that limitation runs against a litigant only when the court or tribunal is open and functional. It must also be capable of receiving the papers sought to be presented.

Where the filing system prevents a bona fide filing within time, the litigant cannot be left without a remedy. This remains so even where the tribunal has no power to condone a delay beyond the statutory limit.

The Supreme court held that the NCLAT could have exempted the period for which its e-filing system was non-functional from the limitation period. It could then have treated the appellant's first bona fide attempt to e-file the appeal on January 28 as the date of presentation.

The court noted that no decision of the Supreme court had been brought to its notice barring a court or tribunal from granting such an exemption from limitation. It also observed that, although the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to proceedings under the IBC, principles flowing from Order VII Rule 6 could be invoked in an appropriate case.

“Since 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, we are of the considered opinion that the NCLAT committed an error by passing the impugned order, which has undoubtedly occasioned miscarriage of justice,” the court ruled.

The apex court accordingly set aside the May 21, 2026, NCLAT order. It restored the appeal and the application before the tribunal.

The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

For Appellant: Ajit Sharma, AOR, Advocates Kanchan Kumar Singh, Yuvrajsinh C. Solanki, Anant Ram Mishra, Lareb Habib Ansari, Akshat Sharma, Amrit Keshri Nandan Pradhan, Shweta Jain

For Resondent: Advocates Sandeep Bajaj, Aakanksha Nehra, Ananya Pratap Singh, Shubham Jaiswal, Lawfic, AOR