Additional documents in Section 9 insolvency proceedings may be refused when they are post-filing and unnecessary for decision.

Additional documents arising after commencement of pending Section 9 insolvency proceedings need not be taken on record unless they are shown to be just and necessary for deciding the application. Here, an arbitration petition under Section 11(6) and the High Court order on it were both subsequent to the insolvency filing, and the Supreme Court had already observed that its dismissal of the challenge to that arbitration order would not affect the IBC proceedings. In that context, the documents were treated as irrelevant to the Section 9 adjudication, and the rejection of the request to bring them on record was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application to bring on record additional documents in the pending Section 9 insolvency proceedings was rightly rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant.

Analysis: The additional documents sought to be introduced were an arbitration petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the order passed thereon by the Calcutta High Court. Both documents came into existence after the filing of the Section 9 application and after the insolvency proceedings were already pending. The Supreme Court's dismissal of the challenge to the arbitration order specifically recorded that the impugned order would not affect the pending proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In that context, the proposed documents were not shown to be just and necessary for deciding the Section 9 application, and their receipt would have run contrary to the Supreme Court's observation.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application to take the additional documents on record was , and the challenge to that rejection failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional documents that arise after initiation of insolvency proceedings and are not shown to be necessary for deciding the Section 9 claim need not be taken on record, particularly where their introduction would not affect the insolvency adjudication in light of an express Supreme Court direction.

---