The Tribunal clarified that admissibility of documents under insolvency procedures does not necessitate detailed examination at the admission stage.

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI BENCH, COURT IV

Item No.6

IA 4736(MB)2025

IN

C.P. (IB)/569(MB)2024

CORAM:

SHRI ANIL RAJ CHELLAN SHRI K. R. SAJI KUMAR

HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

ORDER SHEET OF HEARING (HYBRID) DATED 16.10.2025

NAME OF THE PARTIES: CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

VS

N KUMAR PROJECTS & INFRASTRUCTURE

PRIVATE LIMITED

For Applicant : Adv. Partho Sarkar a/w Adv. Nikesh Uparpelli

i/b Vidhi Legal.

For Respondent : Adv. Amit Tungare.

Sections 7, 60(5) of IBC

ORDER

IA-4736/2025

1. The Corporate Debtor (CD) in CP(IB)569(MB)/2024 (Main C.P.), is the

Applicant in this I.A. The Main C.P. is filed by Central Bank of India, the Financial Creditor (FC) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code/IBC). The Applicant/CD has sought the

following reliefs:

“A. To hold and declare, that the photo-copies/cam scanned documents annexed to CP(IB)569(MB)/2024 are inadmissible evidences as per the mandate of law laid down in ‘Bhartiya

Sakshya Adhiniyam’ earlier Evidence Act.

B. To direct the registry of this Hon’ble Tribunal to intimate Govt. of India (Ministry of Home Affairs &/or such other Govt.

Department) for ultravires usage of Cam Scanner by officials of Central Bank, in introducing documents to be read in evidence in adjudicating CP(IB)569(MB)/2024.

C. To dismiss the Company Petition-CP(IB)569(MB)/2024 at the threshold, on the ground that the documents and materials relied upon by the Financial Creditor are inadmissible in evidence under the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (earlier Indian Evidence Act, 1872), and therefore cannot form the basis of a valid adjudication under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. D. To grant, any other reliefs, in the facts of the present case.”

2. The Applicant/CD has challenged the maintainability of the Main C.P., on the preliminary issue of inadmissible documents produced by the Respondent/FC. According to the Applicant/CD, the photocopies of the documents submitted by the Respondent/FC to substantiate debt and default in the Main C.P. lack evidentiary value under the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) (erstwhile Evidence Act, 1872). The Applicant/CD contends that the numerous photocopies of the documents filed in support of the case in the Main C.P. are not admissible as evidence, since the photocopies were not made by copying machine from the originals and that they were not compared with the original and not properly notarised. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/CD submits that every document is to be proved by leading primary evidence. However, in the absence of the primary evidence, documents can be proved by secondary evidence under the law. It is submitted that, in order for the photocopy of the document to qualify as secondary evidence, the contents of the original are required to be compared. The documents are ex-facie inadmissible as secondary evidence, being scanned copies processed through Mobile Application, viz., “Cam Scanner”, which was banned in India long ago. According to the Applicant, the use of prohibited Application for generating documents intended for filing before judicial forum raises serious questions about cyber safety, and the conduct and propriety of bank officials. Therefore, the Applicant/CD prays for a declaration that the photocopies/cam scanned documents annexed to the Main C.P. are inadmissible, and also for a direction to the Registry of this Tribunal to intimate the Central Government as to the ultra vires usage of Cam Scanner by the Respondent/FC. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/CD has also cited a number of judgments of the Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the admissibility of primary and secondary evidence by Courts under the BSA (erstwhile Evidence Act).

3. On the contrary, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent/FC submits that the present I.A. only deserves to be dismissed in limine. He submits that the Respondent/FC does not propose to file any written reply to this I.A. but has decided to argue