The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment emphasizing that a litigant should not be penalized for delays caused by technical failures on a tribunal’s e-filing portal. This decision came in the case Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani and Others, where an appeal related to insolvency resolution was filed one day late due to technical issues on the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) online portal.
Background of the Case
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu presided over the case. The appeal in question was tied to the insolvency proceedings of Rolta India Limited. In December 2025, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Mumbai approved a resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Private Limited for Rolta India. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (RPFC) sought to challenge it before the NCLAT.
Technical Glitches and Legal Implications
The appeal was dismissed by the NCLAT as time-barred since it was filed one day beyond the permissible period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). According to Section 61(2), an appeal must be filed within 30 days of the NCLT order, with an extension of up to 15 days allowed for sufficient cause, making 45 days the maximum period. In this case, the deadline expired on January 29, 2026.
The RPFC initially attempted to file the appeal on January 28 through the NCLAT’s portal but was thwarted by technical issues. Despite efforts to file on the final permissible day, January 29, the portal’s technical glitches delayed the submission until January 30, rendering the appeal one day late.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
In its September 10 ruling, the Supreme Court highlighted the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit, which ensures that no one should suffer due to a court’s procedural failures. The Court opined that the delay was not the fault of the RPFC, as the NCLAT’s portal issues were beyond the litigant’s control.
The Supreme Court observed that the NCLAT should have considered excluding the period during which the e-filing system was non-functional from the limitation period. By treating January 28 as the effective date of the RPFC’s filing attempt, the NCLAT could have avoided dismissing the appeal on technical grounds.
Conclusion and Implications
The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the NCLAT’s dismissal order from May 21 and reinstated the RPFC’s appeal, along with the application for condonation of delay. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fairness and justice, especially when procedural technicalities hinder a party’s right to appeal.
The RPFC was represented by Advocates Ajit Sharma, Kanchan Kumar Singh, Yuvrajsinh C Solanki, Anant Ram Mishra, Lareb Habib Ansari, Akshat Sharma, Amrit Keshri, Nandan Pradhan, and Shweta Jain. The respondents were represented by Advocates Sandeep Bajaj, Aakanksha Nehra, Ananya Pratap Singh, and Shubham Jaiswal, alongside M/s Lawfic.
