Admissibility of Criminal Records: criminal complaints and FIRs are not admissible as additional evidence in civil company petitions; judgments may be cited.

The dispute concerned production of criminal complaints, FIRs and judicial decisions as additional documents under Rules 11, 13, 32 and 40 of the NCLT Rules, 2016; the tribunal appropriately exercised discretion by excluding criminal process documents from civil evidentiary record on admissibility and relevance grounds and by holding that court judgments may be relied on during submissions without formal admission as additional evidence. The appellate review found no procedural error or illegality in that exercise of discretion and upheld the refusal to place the impugned documents on record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the NCLT erred in rejecting IA No.45/2023 seeking permission to place certain documents (criminal complaints, FIRs and court judgments) on record in Company Petition No.131/130/HDB/2019 under Rules 11, 13, 32 and 40 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.

Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal examined whether the Tribunal, when considering an application for production of additional documents, should have confined itself to procedural considerations or whether it was impermissible to consider the material content and relevance of the documents at that stage. The Tribunal's exercise of discretion under Rules 11, 13, 32 and 40 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 was reviewed in light of principles governing additional evidence and admissibility. Documents sought to be placed included criminal complaints and FIRs; established principles distinguish civil and criminal procedure and generally preclude reading criminal records (FIRs, criminal complaints) into evidence in civil proceedings. Judicial decisions (court judgments) are reliance material that can be cited during arguments and need not be placed on record as additional evidence for proof. The NCLT applied Rule 40 and assessed the nature and relevance of the documents, concluding that criminal process documents were not appropriate to be read into evidence in the civil petition and that judicial precedents could be relied upon during submissions without being admitted as additional evidence. The Appellate Tribunal found no procedural infirmity or illegality in that exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The NCLT did not commit any error in rejecting IA No.45/2023; the application for placing the impugned documents on record was rightly refused. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.

---