Belated amendment under NCLT Rule 155 cannot stand without exceptional circumstances and scrutiny of procedural prejudice.

An 8-day delay in filing the company appeal was condoned because the explanation of counsel's illness was supported, the delay was short, and it fell within the statutory condonable period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. A belated amendment under Rule 155 of the NCLT Rules was, however, not maintainable, because the Tribunal had to consider statutory limits, exceptional circumstances for late amendment, and whether the change altered the nature of the pending liquidation-fee application or caused procedural prejudice. The impugned order was set aside, the amendment application was dismissed, and the liquidation-fee application was left for independent decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 8 days in filing the company appeal was liable to be condoned under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (ii) Whether the amendment application filed under Rule 155 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, seeking to alter the relief and dates in the liquidation-fee application, was maintainable at a belated stage.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 8 days in filing the company appeal was liable to be condoned under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The delay sought to be explained was short, the cause shown was supported by illness of the appellant's counsel, and there was no serious opposition to the request. The delay also fell within the statutory condonable period contemplated by the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the application for condonation was allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment application filed under Rule 155 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, seeking to alter the relief and dates in the liquidation-fee application, was maintainable at a belated stage.

Analysis: Rule 155 contemplates amendment within the prescribed period and, where sought beyond that period, the Tribunal was required to record and examine whether exceptional circumstances justified the indulgence. The impugned order proceeded on the basis that the change was only a correction of dates and that no prejudice would be caused, but it did not address the statutory limits of Rule 155, the need for prior permission in exceptional circumstances, or the effect of the amendment on the nature and complexion of the pending application. The order also failed to consider the wider procedural consequences of allowing the amendment after the matter had substantially progressed.

Conclusion: The amendment application ought not to have been allowed and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the amendment application was dismissed, and the company appeal succeeded, leaving the substantive liquidation-fee application to be decided independently on its merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated amendment under Rule 155 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 cannot be allowed unless the Tribunal records a legally sustainable basis, including exceptional circumstances where required, and considers whether the proposed amendment alters the nature of the proceeding or causes procedural prejudice.

---