The Supreme Court has restored an appeal filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (RPFC) against an order approving a resolution plan for Rolta India Limited, ruling that litigants should not lose the right to appeal merely because a tribunal's e-filing system prevented timely filing. According to reports from Business Standard, a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu made this observation while reviving the appeal that was originally dismissed as time-barred by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
The appeal was lodged before the NCLAT one day beyond the statutory deadline after repeated attempts to upload it failed due to technical problems with the tribunal's portal. As reported by Business Standard, the limitation period ended on January 14, 2026, while January 29 was the final day of the additional 15-day period. The RPFC attempted to file the appeal online on January 28 but could not complete the process due to problems with OTP delivery, and a further attempt on January 29 also failed after the NCLAT Registry reported a backend technical issue. The matter arose from a December 15, 2025 order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, which had approved a resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Private Limited in respect of Rolta India Limited.
Under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, an appeal against an NCLT order must ordinarily be filed within 30 days, with the NCLAT able to condone a delay of up to another 15 days if sufficient cause is shown. According to Business Standard, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred on May 21, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to condone a delay beyond the 45-day statutory ceiling. The Supreme Court agreed with the NCLAT on this point, stating that Section 61(2) does not give the tribunal power to condone a delay beyond 45 days. However, the Court found that the facts of the case warranted different treatment, noting that the delay was not caused by the appellant's ignorance of the law, negligence, laches, or any other fault attributable to it.
The Supreme Court relied on the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit — an act of the court should prejudice no one and said the period during which the tribunal's filing system was non-functional could have been excluded while computing limitation. As reported by Business Standard, the Court observed that limitation runs against a litigant only when the court or tribunal is open and functional, and must 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. 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, and 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.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT's order and restored the RPFC's appeal and its application concerning the delay for consideration on merits. According to Business Standard, the Court held that the NCLAT could have exempted the period for which its e-filing system was non-functional from the limitation period and 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 Supreme Court directed the tribunal to reconsider whether sufficient cause existed to condone the delay beyond the initial 30-day period, and noted that the parties were directed to bear their own costs. This ruling establishes that technical failures in tribunal e-filing systems should not result in the automatic loss of litigants' appeal rights, provided they make genuine attempts to file within the statutory period.
