Tribunal upholds amendment in insolvency case, citing natural justice. Precedents support fair process.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the amendment of pleadings in insolvency proceedings, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's decision. The Tribunal held that the amendment was justified in the interest of natural justice and to correct a typographical error, essential for effective adjudication. The delay in filing the amendment application was attributed to an inadvertent error, not deliberate conduct. The decision was based on legal precedents supporting such amendments to prevent unnecessary litigation and ensure fairness. The connected application for stay was also closed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Amendment of pleadings in insolvency proceedings.
2. Delay in filing the amendment application.
3. Legal precedents on the amendment of default dates.
4. Impact of typographical errors in legal documents.

Summary:

Amendment of Pleadings in Insolvency Proceedings:

The Appellant/Corporate Debtor challenged the impugned order allowing the amendment of Part IV of Form 5 by the Respondent/Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority permitted the amendment, citing the interest of natural justice and previous liberty granted to file such an application.

Delay in Filing the Amendment Application:

The Appellant contended that the amendment application was filed with an inordinate delay of 2.5 years. The Respondent argued that the delay was due to a typographical error and not a deliberate act, emphasizing that the amendment was necessary to correct the date of default from 23.10.2012 to 03.08.2018.

Legal Precedents on the Amendment of Default Dates:

The Appellant referenced several judgments, including Ramesh Kymal vs. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd. and Ramdas Dutta Vs. IBDI Bank Limited, arguing that the date of default cannot be changed. The Respondent countered with judgments like Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. vs. Bishal Jaiswal and Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth & Anr. Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain & Anr., which support the amendment of pleadings to correct errors.

Impact of Typographical Errors in Legal Documents:

The Tribunal emphasized that amendments are allowed to avoid unnecessary litigation and should be permitted if they do not cause injustice to the other party. The Tribunal noted that the amendment sought was due to a bona fide typographical error and was necessary for the effective adjudication of the case.

Result:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's order allowing the amendment. The Tribunal held that the amendment was bona fide and essential for resolving the real controversy between the parties. The connected IA991/2023 (for stay) was also closed.

---