The Tribunal has the discretion to allow additional documents post-pleadings unless negligence is shown, prioritizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities.

ORDER

IA(C/ACT)/63/KOB/2025 in CP/02/KOB/2020

Learned Sr. Counsel, Dr. UK Chaudhary, Learned Counsel, Mr. Alishan Naqvee, Learned Counsel, Ms. Rupal Bhatia and Mr. Mansumya Singh appears on behalf of the Applicants through virtual mode and is assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Akhil Suresh, physically present before this Tribunal. Learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. PH Aravind Pandian appears on behalf of the Petitioners through virtual mode and is assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. P Binod, physically present before this Tribunal.

This is an application filed on behalf of the Applicants (Respondents in the main CP) under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 to place on record certain additional documents with some alternate prayers. The applicants of this IA have come with plea that the purported additional documents are essential, necessary and material to discover truth for adjudication of matter in issue. The applicant has relied upon Rules 11, 14, 34, 43, 51 of NCLT Rules, 2016 to invoke inherent powers of this Tribunal to consider the documents and further relied upon several judgements, detailed here for ready reference: -

1. In the matter of Mr. Bontha Sunil Vs. M/s. Naya Infra India Private Limited & Others [CP (CA) No. 1 of 2023], the Hon'ble NCLT, Hyderabad Bench, took on record additional documents filed by the Respondent(s) at the stage of final arguments by observing, as under:

"11. A bare perusal of the above rule discloses that the said rule pertains to the cases relating to the investigation of the affairs of a company under chapter XIV of the Companies Act 2013 and not in respect of matters of the present nature. Thus, there is no express provision/rule either enabling or prohibiting filing of documents by the parties post completion of their respective pleadings in the Companies Act or in the Rules made thereunder.”

2. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in re, Dena Bank Vs. C.Sivakumar Reddy & another in Civil Appeal No.1650 of 2020 reported in LL. 2021 SC 349, while dealing with an identical plea held that:

"144. There is no bar in law to the amendment of pleadings in an application under Section 7 of the IBC, or to the filing of additional documents, apart from those initially filed along with application under Section 7 of the IBC in Form-1. In the absence of any express provision which either prohibits or sets a time limit for filing of additional documents, it cannot be said that the Adjudicating Authority committed any illegality or error in permitting the Appellant Bank to file additional documents. Needless however, to mention that depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is inordinate delay, the Adjudicating Authority might, at its discretion, decline the request of an applicant to file additional pleadings and/or documents, and proceed to pass a final order. In our considered view, the decision of the Adjudicating Authority to entertain and/or to allow the request of the Appellant Bank for the filing of additional documents with supporting pleadings, and to consider such documents and pleadings did not call for interference in appeal.”

13.Since the Companies Act or the Rules made thereunder do not contain any express provision which either prohibits or sets a time limit for filing of additional documents, we profitably rely on the above ruling. Therefore, the test being to find whether there is any negligence on the part of the party in non-filing of the documents earlier, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in re, Dena Bank, Supra, we have examined the contest put forth by the respondent herein and we did not find the plea of negligence on the part of the Petitioner in non-filing of these additional documents along with or before filing of the Counter.

14. Therefore,