Fresh leave required for amending company petitions; general liberty cannot justify unilateral insertion of new substantive reliefs.

A company petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be altered by inserting a new substantive prayer without a fresh application and leave of the Tribunal. Rule 155 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 and Section 424 require compliance with natural justice, and a prior general liberty to supplement or amend reliefs does not authorise unilateral addition of new reliefs on the petitioner's own motion. On that basis, prayer clause (e) was held unsustainable and ordered to be deleted; the challenge to the Tribunal's refusal succeeded, while liberty remained to seek amendment afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether prayer clause (e) inserted in the amended company petition could be sustained without a fresh application and leave of the Tribunal, and whether the earlier order permitting further supplementation and amendment of reliefs authorised such insertion.

Analysis: The Tribunal's procedural framework under Rule 155 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 and Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 requires adherence to natural justice and does not permit alteration of pleadings in a company petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 without leave. The earlier amendment order permitted the petitioner to further supplement, enlarge, amend, or modify the reliefs by filing any other documents or applications. That language contemplated a fresh application and did not authorise a unilateral addition of new substantive reliefs. Since no fresh application or specific leave was obtained before inserting prayer clause (e), the addition could not be treated as validly incorporated. The earlier permission could not be stretched to validate an amendment made on the petitioner's own motion.

Conclusion: Prayer clause (e) was unsustainable and had to be deleted. The challenge to the Tribunal's order succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, the impugned rejection of the applications was set aside, and the applicants obtained relief against the unauthorised amendment while leaving open the petitioner's liberty to seek amendment afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment to a company petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be introduced without a fresh application and leave of the Tribunal, and a prior general liberty to amend does not authorise unilateral insertion of substantive reliefs.

---