A technical malfunction in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) e-Filing Portal has raised serious concerns over the reliability of the Tribunal’s digital filing system after an advocate alleged that a backend registration mapping error prevented the filing of a time-sensitive petition before the NCLT Cuttack Bench.
The issue, according to a formal complaint submitted to the e-Filing technical support team, remained unresolved despite repeated calls, emails and urgent follow-up requests, placing the matter at imminent risk of becoming barred by limitation.
The complaint states that the advocate had already completed registration on the NCLT e-Filing Portal and possessed a valid portal account. However, while attempting to institute a fresh case, the advocate’s profile failed to appear in the mandatory “Advocates/Representatives” dropdown menu, making it impossible to associate the advocate with the petition and proceed with the filing.
As the selection of a registered advocate from the dropdown is an indispensable step in the e-filing workflow, the apparent advocate registration mapping glitch effectively blocked submission of the petition. The advocate asserted that the inability to file was entirely attributable to a portal malfunction and not to any procedural lapse on the part of the litigant or counsel.
The complaint further alleges that despite repeatedly contacting the Registry and the e-Filing support team through telephone calls and emails, no effective response or technical assistance was received. According to the communication, repeated follow-ups seeking immediate intervention went unanswered while the statutory limitation period continued to run, leaving the advocate without any mechanism to protect the client’s legal rights.
Highlighting the urgency of the matter, the complaint warned that failure to rectify the portal defect immediately could result in the petition becoming time-barred. It emphasized that such a consequence would cause irreparable legal and financial prejudice to the client, even though the delay stemmed solely from a technical failure of the official filing platform.
To address the issue, the advocate requested the technical team to manually synchronize the registered profile with the portal database or rectify the backend indexing error so that the advocate’s name would appear in the “Advocates/Representatives” list. Alternatively, the complaint sought an emergency mechanism permitting the petition to be accepted for filing in order to safeguard the limitation period until the technical issue was resolved.
The communication was reportedly accompanied by screenshots of the portal displaying the missing advocate profile and supporting proof of advocate registration to facilitate immediate verification and corrective action.
The incident underscores the growing dependence of judicial institutions on digital filing infrastructure and the significant consequences that can arise when technical defects obstruct access to justice. Legal practitioners have consistently maintained that e-filing platforms handling limitation-sensitive matters must be supported by responsive technical assistance, backend monitoring and contingency procedures to ensure that litigants do not lose substantive legal rights because of software failures.
The allegations also raise broader concerns regarding the responsiveness of registry and technical support mechanisms in cases involving urgent filings. As courts and tribunals increasingly transition to fully digital processes, the availability of prompt technical intervention and emergency filing safeguards is likely to remain a critical aspect of ensuring that technological failures do not override statutory rights or impede access to justice.
Read More: CESTAT Upholds Service Tax on Mining Royalty Paid Under RCM
