Additional affidavit in remanded insolvency proceedings may be accepted; Rule 55 does not absolutely bar further pleadings.

After remand of a Section 7 insolvency petition for fresh adjudication, earlier interlocutory orders could not be used to restrict later pleadings. Rule 2(19) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 defines pleadings broadly, and Rule 55 is not an absolute bar because further pleadings may be allowed with leave of the Tribunal. In proceedings under Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013, relevant material should ordinarily be permitted on record unless irreparable prejudice is shown. On that basis, refusal to accept an additional affidavit solely by reference to past conduct and the earlier stage was unsustainable, and the affidavit was directed to be taken on record subject to rebuttal.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after remand of a Section 7 insolvency petition for hearing afresh, the financial creditor could be permitted to file an additional affidavit and whether Rule 55 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 could be used to deny that opportunity.

Analysis: The remand order revived the insolvency petition for fresh adjudication on its own merits, leaving the earlier pre-remand interlocutory orders merged with the final order and incapable of being relied upon to restrict subsequent pleadings. The definition of pleadings under Rule 2(19) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 is inclusive and wide, and Rule 55 is not an absolute bar; it permits further pleadings with leave of the Tribunal. In proceedings governed by Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the principles of natural justice, a party should ordinarily be allowed to place relevant material on record unless irreparable prejudice is shown. The rejection of the request for an additional affidavit, based on past conduct and the earlier procedural stage, was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The refusal to take the additional affidavit on record was set aside, and the additional affidavit was directed to be accepted, subject to rebuttal by the respondent.

---