O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

14.06.2024:

The Respondent No. 1 herein had instituted the proceedings by way of filing a Company Petition No. 131/130/HDB/2019 Dr. BVS Lakshmi Vs Geomatrix Laser Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., before NCLT, Hyderabad, whereby invoking the provisions contained under section 130 of the Companies Act, 2013, she sought a relief, to the effect of appointment of an independent auditor, so as to re-open and re-cast the financial statements of Geomatrix Laser Solutions Pvt. Ltd.(Appellant herein), pertaining to for last eight financial years i.e., with effect from year 2010 -2011 upto the financial years 2016-2017.

Be that as it may, at this stage of appeal, we are not venturing upon the merits of the proceedings under section 130 of the Companies Act, 2013, because in the instant Appeal, the present Appellant, who happens to be Respondent/Opposite Party No. 1, in the aforesaid proceedings before NCLT, seeks to challenge the order dated 06.11.2023 of NCLT, Hyderabad rejecting his application in IA No. 45/2023 praying for placing certain additional documents in support of his defence in the proceedings of CP/131/130/HDB/2019 initiated by Respondent No.1.

The argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, seeks to challenge the impugned order on the ground that the Learned Tribunal, at the stage of considering the IA for taking the documents on record, in the Principal proceedings before it, ought not to have delved upon the veracity and genuineness of the documents itself to ascertain whether the documents were at all required to be taken on record, to be read in evidence in the proceedings under section 130 of the Companies Act instituted by the Respondent No. 1. He submits that the Learned NCLT has travelled beyond its competence, at the stage of consideration of the Application IA No.45/2023, because the propriety and relevance of the documents should have been put to test by permitting the Parties to lead their respective evidence in relation to the documents thus placed on record, in order to establish the facts with regard to the contents of the documents. He submits that the NCLT, should have limited itself to the aspect as to whether at all the Application IA No. 45/2023 requires to be considered or not and it ought not to have ventured with the aspect relevancy of the documents to be placed in the proceedings.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the Application thus filed by the Appellant was preferred by invoking the provisions contained under Rule 11, 13, 32 & 40 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. There cannot be any dispute with regards to the extent and ambit of exercise of discretionary powers possessed by the NCLT in relation to the aforesaid application as derived from the aforesaid provisions under NCLT Rules of 2016, and there cannot be a strict or absolute restriction too on the Tribunal to take the documents on record, which could have otherwise facilitated either of the parties to the proceedings to establish their case in order to meet out the ends of Justice and to provide a complete opportunity to the parties to establish their case before the Learned Tribunal.

The basic principles governing additional documents on record are that the Trial Court, being the Principal Court of evidence, i.e., the Tribunal herein, should provide the fullest opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence in order to enable to establish their and for the same, should permit placing of additional documents to be taken on record subject to its relevancy to the issue under consideration.

It is needless to mention that proceedings before the ‘Tribunal’ and those before Appellate Tribunal too, would be governed by the same principles as above.

The proceedings of the NCLT (Tribunal) are governed by the provisions contained under NCLT Rules, 2016, as referred hereunder and provisions of NCLT Rules, 2016 permit the parties to establish their case by submission of necessary documents including additional one