https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766745 In a Section 7 insolvency proceeding, Rule 42 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 was treated as permitting a rejoinder where the respondent introduces additional facts needed for a just decision. After delay in filing the rejoinder was condoned, the adjudicating authority could not refuse to consider its factual assertions on a technical ground, because there is no express bar on additional pleadings or documents before final adjudication. The appellate tribunal was expected to correct that error. The refusal to consider the rejoinder was therefore held unsustainable, and the challenge to the appellate order succeeded. en-us Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Mar 2025 07:12:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766745 In a Section 7 insolvency proceeding, Rule 42 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 was treated as permitting a rejoinder where the respondent introduces additional facts needed for a just decision. After delay in filing the rejoinder was condoned, the adjudicating authority could not refuse to consider its factual assertions on a technical ground, because there is no express bar on additional pleadings or documents before final adjudication. The appellate tribunal was expected to correct that error. The refusal to consider the rejoinder was therefore held unsustainable, and the challenge to the appellate order succeeded. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766745