S.No.6

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

HYDERABAD BENCH – 1

VC AND PHYSCIAL (HYBRID) MODE

ATTENDANCE CUM ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING HELD ON

08-05-2024 AT 10:30 AM

CP No. 5/59/HDB/2020

AND

IA(CA) 23/2024 in CP No. 5/59/HDB/2020

u/s. 59 of Companies Act, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

Girish Sanghi …Petitioner

AND

Sanghi Cements Ltd & another …Respondent

C O R A M:-

DR. VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA BADARINATH NANDULA, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

SH. CHARAN SINGH, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

O R D E R

IA No. 23/2024:

1. This Interlocutory Application is filed on behalf of 1^st Respondent in the Company Petition, namely, M/s Sanghi Cements Ltd, for leave to file additional

documents mentioned in the list enclosed to this Application.

2. According to the Applicant, the Applicant earlier had filed IA 235/2023 praying this Tribunal to permit the Applicant to bring on record an additional affidavit and the very same documents the receipt of which is sought in this application and said IA was partly allowed, ordering that additional affidavit alone be received and refused to receive the documents on the ground that procedure mandated under law for receiving additional documents was not followed by the Applicant. In this backdrop the present Application is filed for

leave to receive the very same additional documents.

3. According to the Applicant the reason for not filing these documents earlier is that the additional documents sought to be received are the documents which the applicants have now were been able to locate from their company records. It is further submitted that the records in question are almost 10 years old and as such, the Applicants are filing whatever relevant information/documents it has now been able to locate.

4. The Respondent filed counter opposing the Application contending, inter- alia, that the Applicant is trying to bring some irrelevant additional documents on record without there being a pleading in respect of these additional documents, as according to the Respondent the same is impermissible under law. In support of their submissions, the Respondent relied on the following ruling:-

Bachhaj Nahar Vs Nilima Mandal & Anr (2008) 7 SCC 491.

“The principles laid down in Bhagwati Prasad 11 and Ram Sarup Gupta (supra) referred to above and several other decisions of this Court following the same cannot be construed as diluting the well settled principle that without pleadings and issues, evidence cannot be considered to make out a new case which is not pleaded”.

It is further contended that the so-called reason stated in the application for not filing the documents earlier, is neither tenable nor sustainable and on this ground alone the application is liable to be dismissed. In support of this plea, the Respondent relied on the following ruling:-

Union of India Vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr (2012) 8 SCC 148.

29. The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document does not constitute a "substantial cause" within the meaning of this rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal.

30. The words "for any other substantial cause" must be read with the word "requires" in the beginning of sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court requires additional evidence, that this rule will apply, e.g., when evidence has been taken by the lower Court so imperfectly that the Appellate Court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment.

31. Whenever the appellate Court admits additional evidence it should record its reasons for doing so. (Sub-rule 2). It is a salutary provision which operates as a check against a too easy reception of evidence at a late stage of litigation and the statement of reasons may inspire confidence and disarm objection. Another reason of this requirement is that, where a further