Plea In Delhi High Court Alleges NCLAT E-Filing Glitches Hampering Appeal Against CCI's Rapido Order

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday heard a petition alleging that repeated non-speaking defect notices issued by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Registry and technical glitches in its e-filing portal were obstructing the petitioner's statutory right to pursue an appeal.

The appeal,filed by Vedansh Pandey, challenges a Competition Commission of India (CCI) order that closed his complaint against Rapido over alleged permit violations in Uttarakhand.

During the hearing, Justice Madhu Jain orally observed that the High Court does not exercise administrative control over the NCLAT. The court also questioned why the petitioner had not first approached the tribunal regarding the grievances raised in the plea.

Opposing the petition, the respondents contended that any grievance concerning registry objections should be raised before the NCLAT itself. It was also submitted that the tribunal provides both online and offline filing facilities and that any defects could be cured through the Registry.

After hearing the parties, the court listed the matter for further hearing on August 27.

According to the plea, the appeal was filed before the NCLAT on May 13, 2026, within the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner claims that the filing process subsequently became mired in repeated registry objections, portal-related difficulties and shifting compliance requirements.

The petition states that defect notices issued on May 20 and May 26 required, among other things, a combined PDF not exceeding 300 pages. At the same time, the e-filing portal continued to provide separate upload categories for appeals, applications, affidavits and annexures.

The petitioner submitted that despite filing the appeal within limitation, recurring portal issues and repeated registry objections had prevented completion of the filing process. It was argued that representations sent to the NCLAT Registrar and other officials had failed to yield meaningful clarification. According to the petitioner, this uncertainty threatened his appellate remedy.

The petition arises from a March 17, 2026 CCI order closing a complaint against Rapido. The complaint alleged that private vehicles were being used for bike-taxi operations in Uttarakhand without the requisite permits.

According to the petition, a central difficulty arose because the Registry's scrutiny process required a combined PDF not exceeding 300 pages. However, the visible portal workflow continued to provide separate document-wise upload categories such as Appeal, Interlocutory Application, Impugned Order, Payment Receipt, Proof of Service, Affidavits, and Annexures.

“A central difficulty was that the 300-page combined PDF requirement was communicated through Registry scrutiny/defect marking, whereas the visible e-filing portal did not present a simple 'combined 300-page appeal PDF only' workflow. The portal continued to display separate document-wise upload categories such as Appeal, Interlocutory Application, Impugned Order, Payment Receipt, Proof-of-Service, Affidavits and Annexures. This created a direct mismatch between the Registry's internal expectation and the visible portal flow,” the petition states.

The petitioner further alleged that the NCLAT portal did not display Uttarakhand in the jurisdiction dropdown menu. The plea also claims that certain respondent email domains could not be validated. It further alleges ambiguity regarding the correct BharatKosh payment head and the procedure for filing interlocutory applications.

“This is not a case where the Appellant-in-Person refused to cure defects. The Petitioner repeatedly attempted to cure every defect, but was faced with vague defect wording, inconsistent oral instructions, unclear IA workflow, contradictory fee guidance, BharatKosh/payment-head ambiguity, portal classification issues, a 300-page combined-PDF expectation inconsistent with document-wise portal uploads, earlier portal defects, non-responsive Registry communication channels, inadequate IT/Registry support and repeated non-speaking objections,” the petition states.

The petition seeks directions to the NCLAT Registry to process or register the appeal if the defects already stand cured. Alternatively, it seeks a speaking defect order specifying the precise rules, portal workflow, fee requirements, and remaining deficiencies, if any.

The petitioner has also sought protection against the appeal being treated as abandoned, closed, rejected, or time-barred because of the alleged portal and registry difficulties.

The plea further seeks clarification on the procedure and fee requirements for filing interlocutory applications. It also seeks permission to submit corrective documents through email or another electronic mode if portal limitations prevent their upload.