2025 (3) TMI 130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is at the instance of the appellant - State Bank of India seeking to challenge the order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai dated 04.10.2023 by which the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the State Bank of India and thereby affirmed the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under : - i) In February, 2020, the Bank filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC before the NCLT. ii) In November, 2021, the respondent - herein India Power Corporation Limited (IPCL) filed its counter affidavit before the NCLT. iii) On 13.06.2022, the State Bank of India filed its rejoinder ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e just decision of the case, the Bench may allow the petitioner to file a rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent, with an advance copy to be served upon the respondent." 7. The learned Solicitor General of India invited the attention of this Court to a decision in Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy and Another (2021) 10 SCC 330, wherein this Court has taken the view that in the absence of any express provision which prohibits or sets a time-line for filing of additional documents, there is no bar to the filing of documents over and above those documents initially filed with Section 7 petition. The Court further clarified that it is permissible to file any document until a final order either admitting or dismissing the Section 7 ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n and/or to allow the request of the appellant Bank for the filing of additional documents with supporting pleadings, and to consider such documents and pleadings did not call for interference in appeal". (Emphasis supplied) 8. We are of the view that the both NCLT and NCLAT committed an egregious error in taking a very technical or rather pedantic view of the matter. 9. Having permitted the Bank to file their rejoinder after condoning the delay, it was too much for the NCLT to say that the Bank shall not be permitted to rely on any assertions made in the rejoinder. It was expected of the NCLAT to correct such an error. Unfortunately, the Appellate Tribunal also fell into the same error. 10. We are further informed that against the....