Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical))
Order Date: 2nd November 2026
Case Overview
The matter pertains to I.A. No. 7094 of 2026, a recall application filed by Excel Arcade Private Limited (Applicant/Appellant). The Applicant sought the recall of an order dated 22.05.2026 (the 'impugned order') passed by the NCLAT in I.A. No. 1245 of 2026. The impugned order had dismissed the Applicant's application seeking condonation of a 5-day delay in e-filing Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 330 of 2026. This appeal itself was a challenge to an order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) in CP (IB) No. 1068/MB/2023.
The Applicant's principal argument was that the delay was not due to negligence but caused by technical glitches in the NCLAT's e-filing portal. They contended that their first bona fide attempt to file was on 22.01.2026, the last day of the 45-day limitation period (30+15 days under IBC Section 61(2)), but the portal was unresponsive. An email sent to the NCLAT Registry on 22.01.2026 at 22:36 hours, containing the appeal, was quarantined by the system's phishing controls. The appeal was successfully e-filed on 28.01.2026. The Applicant relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II vs. Ms. Mamta Binani & Ors (2026 INSC 1003), which applied the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no man) in a similar situation involving NCLAT portal failure.
The Respondent, Unity Small Finance Bank Limited, opposed the application, arguing it was not maintainable. They cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb (1999) 4 SCC 396), which outlines limited grounds for recall: lack of jurisdiction, fraud/collusion, a mistake of the court prejudicing a party, or a necessary party not being served. The Respondent asserted that the impugned order was a reasoned, speaking order that had attained finality as it was never appealed to the Supreme Court. They distinguished the Mamta Binani case, noting that in that instance, the order was appealed, whereas here, the recall application was a belated attempt to seek a 'backdoor entry' after the limitation to appeal to the Supreme Court had expired.
The Tribunal, in its reasoning, focused on the maintainability of the recall application. It concurred with the Respondent's position based on the Budhia Swain precedent, finding that the Applicant had not substantiated any of the limited grounds required for a recall. The Tribunal noted the application was filed on 24.09.2026, over four months after the impugned order and only after the Mamta Binani judgment was passed on 10.09.2026. It characterized the application as a camouflaged attempt to review the merits of the case, a power not vested in the NCLAT. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the doctrine of finality (res judicata) and stated that an unchallenged order, even if potentially erroneous, attains finality. It also found the Applicant's explanation for the 5-day gap (citing holidays) to be frivolous, as the e-filing portal operates 24/7.
Final Outcome
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissed I.A. No. 7094 of 2026. The recall application was found to be devoid of merit and not maintainable. The order dated 22.05.2026, which rejected the condonation of delay and consequently the underlying appeal, stands. No costs were awarded.
Topics: NCLAT Procedure, Limitation Period, Recall Application