Is a decision authority only for the points that arose on its own facts, and not for conclusions that merely appear similar?

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — s.61(2) — Limitation — Actus curiae neminem gravabit — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 6 — Condonation of delay — Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — s.61(2) — Tribunal's own system failure — Held: A litigant must not be denied remedy for e-filing an appeal a day beyond Section 61(2)'s condonable limit where delay is caused by the tribunal's own e-filing failure. The remedy lies in actus curiae neminem gravabit, not an enlarged condoning power. (¶13, 19) Actus curiae neminem gravabit — Limitation runs only when tribunal is functional — Held further: Limitation runs against a litigant only when the court or tribunal is open and functional to receive papers presented bona fide and in time. A litigant cannot be left remediless where the tribunal's own system failed to receive a timely, bona fide filing. (¶19) Ratio decidendi — Precedent confined to its own facts — Held further: A decision is authority only for the points that arose on its own facts, not for conclusions that merely appear similar. National Spot Exchange Ltd. and Tata Steel Ltd. accordingly had no application to the stark difference in facts here. (¶10, 11, 12) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 6 — Applied to IBC by analogy — Held further: Principles of Order VII Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be invoked in an appropriate case under the IBC though that Code does not otherwise apply. The NCLAT ought to have treated the appellant's first bona fide e-filing attempt as the date of presentation. Appeal allowed; NCLAT's order set aside and the condonation application restored for reconsideration. (¶20, 23, 24)