Supreme Court Holds the First Bona Fide Attempt to E-File Is the Date of Presentation Where a Tribunal Portal Fails
Background and Facts
Where a tribunal's own e-filing system refuses the papers, the date of presentation of an appeal is the date of the first bona fide attempt to file, not the later date on which the portal finally accepted it. The Supreme Court so held in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani and Others, reported as 2026 INSC 1003 and decided on September 10, 2026.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner sought to appeal against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal approving a resolution plan for Rolta India Limited submitted by Ashdan Properties Private Limited. The outer limit for the appeal, taking the thirty-day period and the further fifteen days that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow, expired on January 29, 2026.
The appellant tried to file on January 28, 2026. That attempt failed because the one-time password was not delivered. A second attempt on January 29, 2026, the last day available, failed on account of a backend technical defect in the system. The appeal was successfully uploaded on January 30, 2026, one day beyond the outer limit. The Appellate Tribunal declined condonation and dismissed the appeal as time barred.
Key Legal Issue
The difficulty is created by the structure of Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. An appeal must be filed within thirty days, and the proviso permits the Appellate Tribunal to allow an appeal filed after that period on sufficient cause, but expressly provides that the further period shall not exceed fifteen days. The outer limit is therefore forty-five days and the Appellate Tribunal has no power to go beyond it. The question was whether an appellant defeated by the tribunal's own system is left without a remedy because the statute caps condonation.
The Supreme Court's Ruling
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set aside the dismissal and restored the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration. The Court held that
"a litigant cannot be rendered remediless on the specious ground that the court/tribunal has no power to condone the delay when the system of the court/tribunal fails to receive the papers due to a backend failure/technical glitch".
Presentation Is Not the Same as Condonation
The reasoning matters more than the result, because the Court did not stretch the power to condone. It relocated the question. The Appellate Tribunal, it held, should have treated the date of the first bona fide attempt to e-file as the date of presentation of the appeal.
On that footing the appeal was never late. The statutory cap in the proviso to Section 61(2) is untouched, because no condonation beyond fifteen days is being sought or granted. What is displaced is the assumption that presentation occurs only when the system chooses to accept the upload. This is a distinct argument from an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which asks a court to admit an appeal after the prescribed period on sufficient cause. Here the submission is that the prescribed period was met.
Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit
The Court applied the maxim that an act of the court shall prejudice no one. The principle is familiar in the context of judicial error, and its extension to the failure of a tribunal's own electronic infrastructure is the useful step. A portal maintained by the tribunal is part of the tribunal's apparatus for receiving papers. When it fails, the resulting delay is attributable to the forum and not to the litigant, and the litigant should not bear the consequence.
The corollary is that the appellant must have actually tried. The Court's formulation rests on a first bona fide attempt, and the record here showed two documented failures on consecutive days, the second on the final day available. An appellant who simply waits until the deadline and then asserts that the portal was unreliable has nothing to bring within the principle.
The Disposal Was a Remand, Not a Condonation
It is worth being precise about what the Court did. It set aside the order dismissing the appeal as time barred and restored the file to the Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration. It did not itself hold the appeal to be within time, nor did it decide the merits of the underlying challenge to the resolution plan. The direction operates on the approach the Appellate Tribunal must take, and the Appellate Tribunal will apply it to the material before it.
Practice Notes
In practice, the judgment gives a concrete answer to a problem that has been handled inconsistently:
Document the attempt, not the intention: A screenshot of the error, the time of the attempt, the failed one-time password message and any system reference number are what convert a complaint about a portal into evidence of a bona fide attempt. Capture them while the failure is happening.
Plead presentation before condonation: Frame the primary case as one of presentation on the date of the first attempt, and put the condonation application second and in the alternative. Leading with condonation concedes that the filing was late, which is the concession this judgment makes unnecessary.
Statutes that cap condonation are where this bites: Under Section 61(2) the Appellate Tribunal cannot go beyond fifteen days, so a single day lost to a portal failure is fatal unless presentation is relocated. Identify whether the governing statute caps the power before choosing how to plead.
Do not spend the buffer: The principle rescued an appellant who tried on the penultimate and the final day. It will not assist one who has left no room at all. Filing with days in hand remains the only reliable protection.
For resolution professionals and successful applicants: An approval order is less final than it appears where an appeal was refused on limitation alone. A dismissal on that ground is now more vulnerable, and implementation risk should be assessed accordingly.
Key Provisions Discussed
Section 61(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Any person aggrieved by an order of the Adjudicating Authority under this Part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: An appeal must be filed within thirty days, with a proviso permitting a further period on sufficient cause that shall not exceed fifteen days.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963: An appeal or application may be admitted after the prescribed period where the appellant satisfies the court of sufficient cause, distinguished here from the question of the date of presentation.
Case Details
Case: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani and Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 1003
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: September 10, 2026
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Corporate Debtor: Rolta India Limited
Outcome: Order dismissing the appeal as time barred set aside. Appeal restored to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration, on the footing that the date of the first bona fide attempt to e-file is the date of presentation.
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
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