Supreme Court: In an appeal arising from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) order, wherein, the appellant’s challenge to the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT) order approving a resolution plan in respect of Rolta India Ltd., was dismissed as time-barred after refusing to condone a delay of 1 day beyond the maximum condonable period under Section 61(2), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Sheel Nagu, JJ., applied the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit and restored the appeal before NCLAT, holding that Section 61(2) IBC does not permit the NCLAT to condone delay beyond 45 days, however, where a litigant’s bona fide attempt to file within that period is frustrated solely by failure of the NCLAT’s e-filing system, the period of system failure may be excluded and the first bona fide filing attempt treated as the date of presentation.
Background
In the instant matter, NCLT by order dated 15 December 2025 approved resolution plan dated 22 April 2024, together with the financial proposal of the same date and clarificatory addendum dated 17 May 2024, submitted by Ashdan Properties Private Ltd. in relation to Rolta India Ltd.
The appellant sought to challenge the NCLT’s approval before the NCLAT. Under Section 61(2) IBC, an appeal is required to be filed within 30 days, with a further period of 15 days available for condonation where sufficient cause is shown. The statutory 30-day period expired on 14 January 2026, while the additional condonable period expired on 29 January 2026.
The appellant attempted to e-file its appeal on 28 January 2026, but was unable to do so because of technical defects in the NCLAT’s e-filing portal. On 29 January 2026, the appellant again attempted to file the appeal. The Registry informed it that a backend technical defect was taking time to be repaired. The appeal was eventually e-filed on 30 January 2026, 1 day beyond the maximum condonable period.
The NCLAT rejected the application for condonation and consequently dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding that it had no power under Section 61(2) IBC to condone delay beyond the statutory 30 + 15 days.
Issue for Determination
Whether a litigant should be “shown the door at the very first instance” because an appeal was e-filed beyond the statutorily condonable period when the delay was occasioned by bona fide circumstances beyond the litigant’s control and was attributable entirely to the NCLAT Registry?
Analysis
At the outset, the Court opined that it had “no reason to either disapprove the NCLAT’s discussion” concerning computation of limitation under Section 61(2), nor did it disagree with the law laid down in National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Anil Kohli, (2022) 11 SCC 761 and Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee, (2025) 9 SCC 483. However, the Court considered the facts of the present case to be “rather glaring” and thus, warranting a different treatment.
The Court noted that the reliance placed by NCLAT on National Spot Exchange Ltd. and Tata Steel Ltd. was misplaced on the facts. In National Spot Exchange Ltd., hardship of a litigant was held insufficient to permit an appeal beyond the statutory period. In Tata Steel Ltd., the delay arose from the minority shareholder’s own incorrect understanding of limitation law.
The Court did not dilute the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 61(2) IBC and recognised that “the timelines set out in the IBC must be strictly adhered to”. The Court also accepted that the NCLAT itself had no power to condone a delay beyond the maximum 45-day period contemplated under Section 61(2).
However, the Court stated that the present case was materially different and the appellant’s delay was not attributable to ignorance of law, hardship, laches, negligence or any other fault on its part. Rather, the delay resulted from a failure of the NCLAT’s own e-filing system. Therefore, the NCLAT “ought to have invoked the higher principle of ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’”.
The Court emphasised that limitation runs against a litigant only when the Court or Tribunal is open and functional in the sense that it is capable of receiving the papers sought to be presented. Where the Court or Tribunal’s own system fails to receive papers that the litigant has bona fide attempted to present within time, the litigant cannot be rendered remediless merely because the Tribunal lacks statutory power to condone delay beyond the outer limit.
Thus, although the appellant had described its prayer as one for condonation of delay, the substance of the relief sought was different. The appellant was effectively requesting that the period during which the e-filing system remained non-functional be excluded from the computation of limitation, thereby treating the first bona fide attempt to e-file as the date of presentation.
The Court found no decision prohibiting a court or tribunal from granting such exemption from limitation. Although the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) does not apply to IBC proceedings, the Court held that principles flowing from Order VII Rule 6 CPC could be invoked in an appropriate case.
The Court also referred to A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602, in which the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit had been applied to cure an irregularity arising from directions issued by another Bench.
The Court held that the NCLAT was not precluded from invoking the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit, particularly when neither Section 61 nor any other provision of the IBC supplied an effective remedy for a delay caused by failure of the Tribunal’s own filing system. Therefore, the Court opined that the NCLAT had committed an error in rejecting the appellant’s case, which had “undoubtedly occasioned miscarriage of justice”.
Decision
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the NCLAT’s order dated 21 May 2026 and restored the appeal and application to the file of the NCLAT. It directed the NCLAT to reconsider whether sufficient cause existed for condoning the delay beyond the initial 30-day period under Section 61(2) and if the NCLAT decided in favour of the appellant, the appeal should be registered and decided in accordance with law.
[EPFO-II v. Mamta Binani, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1900, decided on 10-9-2026]
*Judgment Authored by Justice Dipankar Datta
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR, Mr. Kanchan Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Yuvrajsinh C. Solanki, Adv., Mr. Anant Ram Mishra, Adv., Mr. Lareb Habib Ansari, Adv., Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv., Mr. Amrit Keshri Nandan Pradhan, Adv., Ms. Shweta Jain, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Adv., Ms. Aakanksha Nehra, Adv., Ms. Ananya Pratap Singh, Adv., Mr. Shubham Jaiswal, Adv., M/s. Lawfic, AOR
