Pranav B Prem

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had declined to accept a reply submitted after the conclusion of arguments. The Tribunal held that the court record must be treated as correct unless a formal correction application is filed before the same court to rectify any alleged error.

Also Read: NCLAT Rules, Liquidation Of Corporate Debtor Can Be Ordered If Successful Resolution Applicant Cannot Obtain Necessary Approvals Within One Year

Background

The dispute arose in the context of I.A. No. 3143 of 2022 filed before the NCLT, New Delhi, seeking constitution of the Committee of Creditors. On 2nd May, 2025, after hearing arguments from all sides, including the applicant, counsel for Respondent No.12, and the Resolution Professional, the NCLT ordered all parties to submit written submissions within ten days. The matter was then listed for compliance on 19th May, 2025, and further for 4th June, 2025.

Subsequently, the appellants filed I.A. No. 2398 of 2025 under Rules 11 and 15 of the NCLT Rules, seeking leave to file a reply affidavit on behalf of Respondents No. 7, 10, and 11. However, the NCLT rejected this application on the ground that arguments had already concluded on 2nd May, and the Tribunal had only permitted filing of written submissions—not fresh pleadings. It also noted that the Registry had improperly accepted the reply and directed submission of a report explaining how the reply had been taken on record despite the closure of arguments.

Contentions

The appellant argued before the NCLAT that the permission to file written submissions would be futile without first filing a reply. They contended that proper pleadings were necessary to support the written submissions and that the reply ought to have been accepted in the interest of justice.

The respondents, however, opposed the appeal, asserting that arguments had already been concluded, and that the NCLT had never granted liberty to file a reply—only written submissions. They also pointed out that on 15th May, 2025, appearance had been recorded on behalf of Respondents No. 5, 7, 10, and 11, but no reply was submitted at that time.

To counter this, the appellant claimed that no advocate had actually appeared for Respondents No. 7, 10, and 11 on 15th May, and that the record wrongly reflected such appearance. However, they did not file any correction application before the NCLT seeking to amend the record of proceedings.

Findings

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. [AIR 1982 SC 1249], the NCLAT reiterated that the judicial record of the court must be presumed correct unless and until a party moves a formal application for correction. In this case, no such application had been made by the appellants to the NCLT to challenge the accuracy of the recorded appearance.

Also Read: NCLAT Rules, Payment Made During Pendency Of CIRP Application Cannot Be Considered For Calculating Threshold U/S 4 Of IBC

The Appellate Tribunal observed that allowing replies to be filed after arguments were concluded would undermine the finality of proceedings and prevent effective closure of cases. It held that such practices, if permitted, would lead to endless pleadings and perpetual delays. In light of these observations, the NCLAT concluded that there was no merit in the arguments advanced by the appellants. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Appearance

Appellant: Mr. Sunil Fernandez, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Advocate

Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Nipun Gautam, Advocate for R-1 to 10

Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates

Cause Title: Anil Kumar & Ors. V. Manjinder Singh Sandhu & Ors.

Case No: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 833 & 834 of 2025

Coram: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain [Member (Judicial)], Shri. Barun Mitra [Member (Technical)]