Portal Failed, Not the Litigant: Supreme Court Revives EPFO Appeal Dismissed by NCLAT as One Day Late

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has set aside an NCLAT order dismissing the provident fund authority’s appeal against the Rolta India resolution plan as time-barred, where the delay was caused by failures of the NCLAT’s own e-filing system. Applying actus curiae neminem gravabit, it held that limitation runs only when the tribunal is open and functional, and restored the appeal to the NCLAT.

The NCLT, Mumbai approved a resolution plan for Rolta India Limited on 15 December 2025. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner’s counsel tried to e-file an appeal on 28 January 2026 but met portal defects; on 29 January the NCLAT Registry reported a backend technical defect, and the appeal was e-filed on 30 January 2026.

On the judgment’s computation, the 30-day period under Section 61(2) IBC ended on 14 January and the further 15 days on 29 January. The NCLAT rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal as one day beyond the outer limit, relying on National Spot Exchange, (2021) 09 SC CK 0037 and Tata Steel v. Raj Kumar Banerjee, (2025) 05 SC CK 0302, even though its own Registry report later corroborated the e-filing failures.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can an appeal under the IBC be thrown out as time-barred when the delay was caused by the tribunal’s own e-filing system failing?

When the Fault Lies With the Forum

The Court did not disagree with the NCLAT’s computation or with the precedents it cited, but distinguished them on facts, recalling from Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, (1976) 03 SC CK 0020 that a ratio depends on the facts to which law is applied. It accepted that IBC timelines must be strictly followed and that Section 61(2) gives no discretion beyond the outer limit, but found the delay was not due to ignorance, laches or negligence.

The NCLAT, it held, should have applied actus curiae neminem gravabit: limitation “runs against a litigant only when the court/tribunal is open and functional”, and “the litigant cannot be rendered remediless”. With courts increasingly digitised, it said technical delays need scrutiny, and the first bona fide e-filing attempt can be treated as the date of presentation. It cited A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 04 SC CK 0049 as an application of the principle.

What the Court Actually Held

• The NCLAT order of 21 May 2026 was set aside.
• The appeal and the condonation application were restored to the NCLAT.
• The NCLAT must decide whether sufficient cause exists for delay beyond 30 days and, if so, register and hear the appeal on merits.
• Parties bear their own costs.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It protects litigants from losing appeals because of tribunal-side portal failures.
• It reaffirms strict IBC limitation while recognising an exception for system failure.
• It signals that e-filing records and registry reports matter in limitation disputes.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Appellants Before the NCLAT

• Keep screenshots, OTP failure records and registry communications of every failed e-filing attempt.
• Seek exclusion of the non-functional period, not just condonation.

For Resolution Professionals

• Expect a time-bar objection to fail where the delay is traced to the tribunal’s own system.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. It held the period could not run while the tribunal’s system was not functional.

No. It has been restored to the NCLAT, which must first decide the condonation question.

Actus curiae neminem gravabit — an act of the court shall prejudice no one.

Conclusion