Pranav B Prem

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) does not contemplate the filing of any documents while replying to a demand notice, except those specifically mentioned under sub-section (2) of that provision. The Tribunal clarified that additional documents can be submitted at a later stage before the adjudicating authority, even after the completion of pleadings, if sufficient cause is shown.

Also Read: NCLAT Rules, Mere Allegations Of Fraud Can't Invalidate Auction When Unsuccessful Bidder Failed To Put In Bid Despite Opportunity

The appeal arose from an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which rejected IA No. 3245 of 2025 filed by the corporate debtor, Gannon Dunkerley & Company Ltd., seeking to place additional documents on record in a pending Section 9 proceeding initiated by RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd., the operational creditor.

The corporate debtor contended that the documents it sought to place on record were contemporaneous correspondences demonstrating pre-existing disputes over the quality of Ready-Mix Concrete (RMC) supplied by the operational creditor. It was argued that these records were crucial for determining whether a genuine dispute existed prior to the issuance of the demand notice. The appellant also highlighted that it had neither caused any delay nor sought any adjournments at any stage of the proceedings and that the omission to file the documents earlier was unintentional.

On the other hand, the respondent operational creditor opposed the application, submitting that the corporate debtor had already filed its reply to the demand notice and subsequent affidavit-in-reply within ample time but failed to produce these documents then. It contended that the attempt to file them at a later stage was only to delay the disposal of the Section 9 application. The respondent also argued that the documents were already in the corporate debtor’s possession and that no justification had been shown for their delayed submission.

Upon hearing both parties, the Appellate Tribunal examined the sequence of events and noted that the corporate debtor had filed its reply to the demand notice within time and had not sought any extensions. The Tribunal observed that Section 8(2) of the IBC limits the corporate debtor’s response to communicating either the existence of a dispute or proof of payment, and hence, there is no requirement or occasion to annex additional documents while replying to the demand notice. Quoting directly from the judgment, the Bench held, “There is no occasion to submit documents on record while giving a reply to the demand notice. Reply to the demand notice is contemplated in sub-section (2) of Section 8 which does not contemplate filing of any other record or document except those referred to in the said sub-section.”

The NCLAT further relied on Rule 55 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which empowers the Tribunal to grant leave for filing additional documents at any stage after the filing of a reply if deemed necessary for a fair adjudication. The Bench observed that such discretion must be exercised judiciously, particularly in cases where the delay is neither deliberate nor prejudicial to the opposing party.

In addressing the NCLT’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy [(2021) 10 SCC 330], the Appellate Tribunal pointed out that the adjudicating authority had overlooked paragraph 89 of the same judgment, wherein the Supreme Court had categorically stated that “there is no bar to the filing of documents at any time until a final order either admitting or dismissing the application has been passed.” The NCLAT emphasized that the discretion to allow filing of additional documents should always be exercised to advance substantial justice rather than obstruct it on procedural grounds. The Bench also drew support from the Supreme Court’s decision in Sugandhi (Dead) by LRs v. P. Rajkumar [(2020) 10 SCC 706], reiterating that procedural laws are intended to facilitate, not hinder, justice. It observed that if a party assigns valid reasons for not producing documents earlier and no prejudice is caused to the other side, courts should adopt a liberal approach in allowing such filings.

In conclusion, the NCLAT held that the NCLT erred in refusing to take the additional documents on record and accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 04.08.2025. The Tribunal allowed IA No. 3245 of 2025, directing the adjudicating authority to accept the additional documents filed by the corporate debtor. It, however, clarified that it had not examined the relevance or evidentiary value of those documents, leaving that question open for consideration by the NCLT during the hearing of the Section 9 application. The Appellate Tribunal also granted three weeks’ time to the operational creditor to file its reply to the newly admitted documents and directed the adjudicating authority to proceed with the matter in accordance with law thereafter.

Also Read: NCLAT Rules, Claims Based On Guarantee Can Be Considered By RP Even If Guarantee Was Not Invoked Before Insolvency Commencement Date

Thus, the NCLAT reaffirmed that the filing of additional documents after pleadings is permissible under the IBC framework and that Section 8(2) does not restrict such filings solely to the stage of replying to a demand notice, thereby ensuring that procedural technicalities do not override the principles of justice.

Appearance

For Appellant: Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Mr. Dhaval Deshpande, Mr. Amir Arsiwala, Mr. Shaurya Shyam, Ms. Varsha Mohanty, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Abdul Hameed, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Revathi Manivannan, Advocates.

Cause Title: Gannon Dunkerley & Company Ltd. v. RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case No: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1222 of 2025

Coram: Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member)