उच्चतम न्यायालय (Supreme Court) ने व्यवस्था दी कि ई-फाइलिंग (e-filing) पोर्टल की तकनीकी विफलता के कारण किसी पक्षकार को विधिक उपचार (statutory remedies) से वंचित नहीं किया जा सकता, तथा 'न्यायालय का कार्य किसी को क्षति नहीं पहुंचाएगा' (actus curiae neminem gravabit) सिद्धांत के तहत दिवाला अपील (insolvency appeal) को बहाल कर दिया।
The Supreme Court of India ruled that a litigant cannot be denied legal remedies or shown the door due to technical failures in a court or tribunal's online filing system. In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani & Ors. (2026 INSC 1003), a Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set aside an order by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that had dismissed an insolvency appeal presented one day past the statutorily condonable limit.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from corporate insolvency resolution proceedings concerning Rolta India Limited. On December 15, 2025, the Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approved a resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Private Limited. Aggrieved by the approval, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (RPFC) sought to challenge the NCLT order before the NCLAT.
Under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), an appeal must be filed within 30 days. The NCLAT holds statutory discretion to condone delays for an additional 15 days upon a showing of sufficient cause, establishing a strict maximum outer window of 45 days. In this case, the 30-day timeline expired on January 14, 2026, and the 45-day outer limit ended on January 29, 2026.
Technical Glitches and NCLAT Dismissal
Counsel for the RPFC attempted to e-file the appeal on January 28, 2026, but the portal failed due to backend errors and OTP delivery failures. A second attempt on January 29 failed after the NCLAT Registry confirmed ongoing technical repairs. The appeal was successfully uploaded on January 30, exactly one day past the 45-day threshold.
On May 21, 2026, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding that under the strict framework of the IBC, it lacked power to condone delay beyond the 45-day statutory limit. The RPFC subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Rationale and Key Findings
The Supreme Court agreed that tribunals lack statutory authority to condone delay beyond the express 45-day limit under the IBC. However, the Bench emphasized that this case did not involve a negligent party seeking an extension, but rather a systemic glitch that prevented a timely submission.
A report from the NCLAT Registry confirmed that the appellant had made bona fide attempts to upload the appeal starting January 28. Invoking the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit ("an act of the court shall prejudice no one"), the Bench held that limitation runs against a litigant only when the court or tribunal is open, functional, and capable of receiving documents.
The Court observed that rather than treating the case as a late filing requiring delay condonation beyond statutory limits, the NCLAT should have excluded the period during which its e-filing system was non-functional. Treating January 28—the date of the first genuine submission attempt—as the date of presentation brought the filing within the statutory period.
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, set aside the NCLAT's May 21 order, and restored the RPFC's appeal along with the application for delay condonation. The NCLAT was directed to reconsider whether sufficient cause existed for the initial delay beyond 30 days and proceed accordingly.
Description: he Supreme Court of India ruled in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani & Ors. that litigants cannot be penalized for technical failures in court or tribunal e-filing systems.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner attempted to challenge an NCLT insolvency order regarding Rolta India Limited before the NCLAT. Under Section 61(2) of the IBC, appeals face an absolute 45-day outer limitation deadline, which ended on January 29, 2026. The appellant made initial attempts to file on January 28, but NCLAT portal glitches and OTP errors delayed submission until January 30.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred. Reversing this, Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu invoked actus curiae neminem gravabit—an act of court prejudices no one. The Bench directed NCLAT to exclude the server downtime and restore the appeal for consideration on its merits.