Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from an order dated 21 May 2026 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which had dismissed an appeal filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II as time-barred under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The underlying dispute concerned the approval of a resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Private Limited for Rolta India Limited; the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, approved the plan on 15 December 2025. Aggrieved by that approval, the appellant e-filed an appeal before the NCLAT on 30 January 2026, but this was one day after the maximum condonable period of 45 days under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the IBC had expired on 29 January 2026. The appellant explained that it had attempted to e-file the appeal on 28 and 29 January 2026, but could not do so because of technical defects in the NCLAT e-filing portal, including OTP delivery failures and a backend glitch. The NCLAT Registry's report dated 6 May 2026 confirmed that the appellant had made bona fide attempts from 28 January 2026. Despite this, the NCLAT rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked power to condone delay beyond the 30+15 day limit under Section 61(2) IBC and relying on precedents such as National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Anil Kohli and Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee. The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether a litigant should be shut out when e-filing was delayed beyond the statutorily condonable period due solely to the tribunal's own system failure, and whether the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit could be invoked notwithstanding the absence of express condonation power. The Supreme Court did not disapprove the NCLAT's computation of limitation or its legal position that Section 61(2) IBC did not permit condonation beyond 45 days. However, it held that the earlier decisions relied upon were distinguishable: in National Spot Exchange, the delay was based on hardship, and in Tata Steel, the litigant's own misunderstanding of law caused the delay. Here the delay was caused entirely by the NCLAT's e-filing system failure, as confirmed by the Registry's report. The Court emphasized that limitation runs against a litigant only when the court is open and functional, and that a litigant cannot be rendered remediless due to the court's own failure. It invoked the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit and observed that principles under Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, though not directly applicable, could be applied to exempt the period during which the system was non-functional. The Court directed that the first bona fide attempt to file should be treated as the date of presentation, thereby treating the appeal as filed within the 45-day outer limit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the NCLAT order dated 21 May 2026, restored Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 503 of 2026 and I.A. No. 1951 of 2026 to the file of NCLAT for reconsideration, and directed that if the appellant showed sufficient cause to condone the delay beyond 30 days, the appeal should be registered and decided in accordance with law. Parties were left to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Limitation for Appeals - Section 61(2) sets thirty days extendable by fifteen days; NCLAT lacks power to condone delay beyond forty-five days - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61(2) - The NCLAT held the appeal filed on 30.01.2026 was one day beyond the outer limit, and the Supreme Court agreed that the NCLAT had no statutory power to condone delay beyond the 45-day period. Held that the NCLAT's legal conclusion on limitation computed from the date of pronouncement was not disapproved. (Paras 7,18) B) Precedent - Distinguishing Cases - Decisions in National Spot Exchange and Tata Steel were inapplicable because the delay was not due to hardship or litigant's ignorance, but due to tribunal's e-filing system failure - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61(2) - The Supreme Court distinguished the earlier rulings as based on different facts and reiterated the principle from Pawan Kumar Dubey that one additional fact can make a world of difference. Held that NCLAT's reliance on those precedents was misconceived. (Paras 10-12) C) Limitation - Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit - Where a court or tribunal's e-filing system fails, the period of non-functioning must be excluded and the litigant cannot be rendered remediless; the first bona fide attempt to file should be treated as date of presentation - No specific statute; principle applied to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 proceedings - The NCLAT Registry's report showed technical OTP delivery failures prevented e-filing on 28 and 29 January 2026, causing one-day delay. Held that the NCLAT erred by not invoking the higher principle to exempt the period and direct registration as if filed within time. (Paras 15,19-22) D) Civil Procedure - Pleadings - Principles of Order VII Rule 6 can be applied even where CPC is not directly applicable, to exempt period when court cannot receive papers - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 6 - The Supreme Court observed that although CPC may not apply to IBC proceedings, its principles could be invoked in an appropriate case to prevent injustice from a court's own system failure. Held that the NCLAT ought to have treated the date of first bona fide e-filing attempt as the date of presentation. (Para 20) E) Supreme Court Relief - Restoration and Remand - Appeal allowed, NCLAT order set aside, appeal and condonation application restored for reconsideration - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 - The Supreme Court directed the NCLAT to reconsider whether the appellant showed sufficient cause to condone delay beyond thirty days; if decided in appellant's favour, appeal to be registered and decided in accordance with law. Held that parties shall bear their own costs. (Paras 23-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a litigant should be precluded from pursuing an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 when e-filing was delayed beyond the statutorily condonable period due solely to technical failures in the NCLAT's e-filing portal, and whether the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit could exempt such delay despite the absence of express condonation power under Section 61(2) IBC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the NCLAT order dated 21.05.2026, restored Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 503 of 2026 and I.A. No. 1951 of 2026 on the file of NCLAT, directed NCLAT to reconsider whether the appellant showed sufficient cause to condone delay beyond 30 days as stipulated in Section 61(2) IBC, and to register and decide the appeal in accordance with law if it decides in appellant's favour; parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Section 61(2) IBC prescribes 30 days limitation extendable by 15 days
- no power to condone beyond 45 days
- actus curiae neminem gravabit applies when court/tribunal e-filing system fails
- limitation runs only when court is open and functional
- principles of Order VII Rule 6 CPC can exempt period of system failure
- date of first bona fide e-filing attempt to be treated as date of presentation
- decisions are authorities for points decided
- one additional fact can make difference
