How to Preserve an Appeal When a Tribunal E-Filing Portal Fails Before the Limitation Period Expires
A tribunal e-filing portal that refuses papers on the last day of limitation used to be an almost unanswerable problem, because statutes such as Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cap the period that can be condoned. The Supreme Court's judgment of September 10, 2026 in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani and Others, 2026 INSC 1003, supplies the answer: the date of the first bona fide attempt to e-file is the date of presentation. Making that argument available, however, depends almost entirely on what was recorded at the moment the portal failed. This guide sets out the steps.
Step 1: Establish the Outer Limit and Whether It Can Be Extended
Before anything else, fix two dates and one question. The date the limitation period begins, the date it ends, and whether the governing statute allows the forum to go beyond it.
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Section 61(2) allows thirty days, and the proviso permits a further period on sufficient cause which shall not exceed fifteen days. The outer limit is forty-five days and the Appellate Tribunal cannot extend it further.
Under the general law: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits an appeal or application to be admitted after the prescribed period where the appellant satisfies the court of sufficient cause, without a fixed ceiling.
Where the statute caps the extension, a single day lost to a portal failure is fatal unless presentation can be relocated. That is precisely where the reasoning in Mamta Binani does its work, and it is why the classification matters at the outset rather than after the event.
Step 2: Do Not Spend the Buffer
In practice, the principle protects an appellant who tried and failed, not one who left no room. In Mamta Binani the appellant attempted on the penultimate day and again on the final day, and both attempts were documented. An appellant whose first and only attempt is late in the evening of the last day has a thinner case on bona fides and no time to recover.
Treat the statutory outer limit as a hard wall and set an internal deadline several days earlier. The argument developed below is a remedy for a failure, not a substitute for filing in time.
Step 3: Capture the Failure as It Happens
Evidence gathered afterwards is weak. Evidence captured during the attempt is what turns a complaint about a portal into proof of a bona fide attempt. Collect, at the moment of failure:
The error itself: A screenshot showing the error message, the page, and the system clock, together with any error or reference number the portal generates.
Proof of the attempt reaching the system: Any partial acknowledgment, draft number, payment or challan reference, or entry in the portal's own activity log.
The authentication failure: Where the obstacle is a one-time password that never arrives, keep the handset message log and the registered mobile number and email on record.
The file that was ready: Retain the appeal papers with their file timestamps, which show the appeal was complete and ready to be filed on the day of the attempt.
Step 4: Record the Attempt Outside the Portal on the Same Day
A contemporaneous record held only on your own computer is worth less than one that reaches someone else. On the day of the failure, send an email to the registry or the designated technical support address describing the attempt, the time, and the error, and attach the screenshots. Where a helpdesk ticket can be raised, raise it and keep the ticket number.
This step converts the account into something with an independent timestamp and an addressee. It also puts the forum on notice before the limitation period expires, which is materially better than explaining the difficulty for the first time in a condonation application weeks later.
Step 5: File the Moment the Portal Works
Do not wait to assemble the evidence before filing. File as soon as the system accepts the papers, even if that is a day or more after the outer limit, and deal with the timing in the pleadings. A further delay spent perfecting the record undermines the very case being built, because the question is whether the appellant acted diligently throughout.
Step 6: Plead Presentation First and Condonation in the Alternative
The order of the pleading carries real consequences. Two distinct cases are available and they should not be merged.
Primary case, presentation: The appeal was presented on the date of the first bona fide attempt, so it is within the prescribed period and no extension is required. This is the case Mamta Binani supports, and it does not ask the forum to exceed a statutory cap.
Alternative case, condonation: If and only if the forum holds that presentation occurred on the later date, the delay should be condoned for sufficient cause, subject to whatever ceiling the statute imposes.
Leading with condonation concedes that the filing was late. Where the statute caps the extension, that concession can be decisive, because the forum may then conclude it has no power to help however sympathetic the facts.
Step 7: Frame the Challenge Correctly If the Appeal Is Dismissed
Where a forum dismisses an appeal as time barred without engaging with the presentation argument, the challenge should be directed at that omission rather than at the refusal to condone. The proposition is that the forum applied the wrong date, not that it was ungenerous. In Mamta Binani the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal and restored the appeal for reconsideration on that basis, which is the realistic outcome to seek: a remand on the correct approach rather than a finding on limitation at the appellate stage.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Reconstructing the evidence later: A narrative prepared after dismissal is the weakest form of proof. Nothing gathered afterwards replaces a screenshot taken during the failure.
Treating a cap as absolute without argument: The ceiling in a proviso limits condonation. It says nothing about when presentation occurred, and conflating the two surrenders the stronger case.
Filing the condonation application alone: An application that asks only for indulgence frames the appeal as late. Include the presentation case on the record from the first filing.
Relying on a general assertion that the portal is unreliable: The principle attaches to a documented attempt on identified dates, not to the general reputation of a system.
Waiting for the registry to respond: Notify the registry and file anyway. Delay while awaiting a reply is delay attributable to the appellant.
Key Statutory Provisions
Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal by any person aggrieved by an order of the Adjudicating Authority under this Part.
Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Thirty days to appeal, with a proviso allowing a further period on sufficient cause not exceeding fifteen days.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Admission of an appeal or application after the prescribed period on sufficient cause, with an Explanation covering an appellant misled by an order, practice or judgment of the High Court.
Sources and References
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani, 2026 INSC 1003
Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Appeals and Appellate Authority
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Extension of prescribed period in certain cases
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61; Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their circumstances.
Comments