Supreme Court Saves Appeal Dismissed Due to NCLAT's Own Technical Glitch - Supreme Court invokes 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' principle, rules that litigants cannot be penalised for failures in tribunal's e-filing system; restores Regional PF Commissioner's appeal before NCLAT
New Delhi, September 10, 2026 — In a landmark ruling that carries significant implications for digital court proceedings across India, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday set aside an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, which had dismissed an appeal filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (RPFC) as time-barred — even though the one-day delay was caused entirely by a technical failure in the NCLAT's own e-filing portal.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, while allowing Civil Appeal No. 12962 of 2026, invoked the age-old Latin legal maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" — meaning an act of the court shall prejudice no one — and held that a litigant cannot be rendered remediless due to a system failure attributable to the tribunal itself.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from the approval of a resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Private Limited in respect of Rolta India Limited. The NCLT, Mumbai, approved the resolution plan on December 15, 2025. Aggrieved by this order, the RPFC attempted to file an appeal before the NCLAT within the stipulated period under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), which allows a 30-day period for filing appeals, extendable by a further 15 days on sufficient cause shown.
The RPFC's counsel made bona fide attempts to e-file the appeal on January 28 and 29, 2026 — the last two days within the condonable window — but was unable to do so due to technical glitches in the NCLAT's e-filing portal, including failed OTP (One-Time Password) deliveries. The NCLAT Registry's own report, submitted pursuant to the NCLAT's order dated April 29, 2026, corroborated that the technical issues were on the backend of the tribunal's system. The appeal was finally e-filed on January 30, 2026 — one day after the outer limit of 45 days.
NCLAT's Order
The NCLAT, vide its order dated May 21, 2026, rejected the RPFC's application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding that it lacked the power to condone any delay beyond the maximum 45-day period prescribed under Section 61(2) of the IBC. It relied upon Supreme Court decisions in National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Anil Kohli (2022) and Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee (2025) to support its position.
Supreme Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court, while agreeing that the NCLAT indeed lacked the power to condone delay beyond the statutory maximum under Section 61(2) of the IBC, sharply distinguished the present case from the earlier precedents relied upon by the NCLAT. The Court noted that unlike the litigants in National Spot Exchange and Tata Steel, where the delay was attributable to the parties' own negligence or legal misunderstanding, the RPFC's delay was caused entirely by the tribunal's own system failure — a crucial factual distinction.
Justice Dipankar Datta, authoring the judgment, observed: "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."
The Court held that what was required of the NCLAT in such circumstances was not an act of condonation of delay, but an exercise of its inherent power to exempt the period of system non-functionality from the computation of limitation — effectively treating the date of the first bona fide e-filing attempt (January 28, 2026) as the date of presentation of the appeal. This, the Court noted, is in line with principles flowing from Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable by analogy.
Citing the Constitution Bench decision in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988), the Court reiterated that courts and tribunals have the inherent authority to invoke "actus curiae neminem gravabit" to remedy injustice caused by their own acts or omissions.
Final Order
The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT's impugned order dated May 21, 2026, and restored the RPFC's appeal (Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 503 of 2026) along with the condonation application (I.A. No. 1951 of 2026) before the NCLAT for fresh consideration. The NCLAT has been directed to dispose of the condonation application at the earliest and, if decided in the appellant's favour, to register and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Significance
This ruling sends a strong message to all tribunals and courts embracing digital infrastructure: litigants cannot bear the burden of technical failures within the system. As India's judiciary continues its digital transformation, this judgment sets a vital precedent ensuring that procedural justice keeps pace with technological realities.
Bottom Line:
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Delay in e-filing appeal beyond condonable period due to technical issues in tribunal's e-filing system - Tribunal ought to invoke the principle of "actus curiae neminem gravabit" to ensure justice is not denied due to a system failure.
Statutory Provision(s): Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979854
