Supreme Court: NCLAT E-Filing Delay Warrants Condonation

• The Supreme Court ruled that litigants cannot be denied relief for appeal delays caused by e-filing portal failures.
• This decision stemmed from an insolvency case where an appeal was filed one day late due to glitches on the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's portal.
• Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu highlighted that the fault lay with the NCLAT Registry, not the litigant.
• The Court invoked the legal principle *actus curiae neminem gravabit*, meaning an act of the court should prejudice no one.
• The ruling establishes a crucial precedent protecting litigants from being penalized for technical issues beyond their control.

The Court unequivocally stated its position, emphasizing that such a litigant should not be 'shown the door.'

The Supreme Court recently delivered a significant ruling on September 10, asserting that litigants should not face dismissal of their appeals solely due to delays stemming from technical malfunctions within a court or tribunal's electronic filing system. This pronouncement came in the case of *Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms Mamta Binani and Others*, where the apex court addressed a situation involving a one-day delay in filing an appeal.

The specific appeal concerned an insolvency resolution matter, which encountered a brief but critical delay. The litigant's attempts to submit the appeal electronically were thwarted by persistent glitches on the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) online portal. Despite diligent efforts to file within the prescribed period, the system's failure prevented timely submission, leading to the appeal being lodged just one day beyond the statutory deadline.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu critically examined the circumstances, questioning whether a litigant should be denied access to justice when a filing delay is attributable to bona fide reasons beyond their control, particularly when the fault lies with the NCLAT Registry itself. The Court unequivocally stated its position, emphasizing that such a litigant should not be 'shown the door.'

Central to the Supreme Court's reasoning was the invocation of the venerable legal maxim, *actus curiae neminem gravabit*. This principle, meaning 'an act of the court shall prejudice no one,' underscores that procedural or administrative actions of the judiciary, including technical failures of its systems, should not adversely affect the rights or standing of litigants. The Court highlighted that when the e-filing system of a court or tribunal fails to accept papers presented in good faith and within the stipulated time, the litigant cannot be held responsible for the ensuing delay. This ruling provides crucial clarity regarding the condonation of delay in cases involving an e-filing glitch.

This landmark decision by the Supreme Court holds substantial implications for legal practice, particularly concerning the challenges posed by the increasing reliance on electronic filing systems. It establishes a vital precedent, ensuring that the integrity of the judicial process is maintained even when technological infrastructure falters. The ruling reinforces the principle that access to justice should not be impeded by technical shortcomings of the court's own mechanisms, thereby protecting litigants from arbitrary rejections based on system errors.

The judgment is particularly relevant for appeals affected by a Supreme Court NCLAT e-filing delay, offering a robust defense against dismissal when the delay is demonstrably caused by portal failures. It empowers legal practitioners to argue for the condonation of delay, provided they can demonstrate that the delay was due to genuine technical issues with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal portal or similar e-filing platforms, and not due to their own negligence. This ruling ensures that the spirit of justice prevails over unforeseen technical impediments.

This ruling provides a crucial precedent for lawyers facing appeal rejections due to e-filing portal glitches, emphasizing that litigants should not be penalized for technical failures beyond their control. Lawyers should meticulously document any e-filing issues to support arguments for condonation of delay in such circumstances.

Source: Original reporting on a Supreme Court judgment.