TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1303
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f facts of the case and sequence of the events are:- 2.1. The Respondent No.1 (Operational Creditor) filed Section 9 petition on 18.12.2024. On 07.04.2025, the application came for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority on which date the Adjudicating Authority issued a notice to the Corporate Debtor, the Appellant herein and fixed 05.05.2025 for appearance and reply of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor filed its reply on 02.05.2025. The Operational Creditor was allowed three weeks' time to file rejoinder and next date fixed for 09.06.2025. On 09.06.2025, Operational Creditor filed rejoinder and was directed to remove the defects. On 27.06.2025 which was next date the Adjudicating Authority noticing the willingness of the parties to explore settlement and adjourned the matter for 17.07.2025. 10th July 2025 was fixed by the Adjudicating Authority for negotiation on which date parties met but however, could not arrive at any settlement. On 16.07.2025, IA No.3245 of 2025 was filed by the Corporate Debtor, Appellant herein praying to take on record the additional documents filed by way of additional affidavit. Adjudicating Authority on 17.07.2025 adjourned the matte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reply to Section 9 application. 5. Counsel appearing for the Respondent opposing the submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in the reply notice dated 08.08.2024, the Corporate Debtor has only referred to the verbal concerns regarding alleged irregularities and deficiencies in supplying material. No reference was given to any correspondences, hence, there was no occasion to bring additional documents. Further, it is not proved that the documents which is sought to be produced as on date were not available with the Corporate Debtor. The pleadings were completed in the proceeding and Court has also granted time to both the parties to file their brief submissions and at this stage, Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the application for taking additional documents on record, endeavour of the Corporate Debtor to delay disposal of Section 9 application, hence, Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the application. 6. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the sequence of the events, as noticed above, it is clear that first date after issuance of notice by the Adjudicating Authority wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tablish that the Operational Creditor's claim is not only disputed but is also exaggerated and unsubstantiated in law and on facts. 10. The Applicant/Corporate Debtor by way of an Additional Affidavit seeks to place on record extensive project-wise correspondence exchanged between the parties in relation to four major project sites, namely: TSK, JSL, UTCL--Cuttack, and MPWI-Farakka. These communications detail the chronology of supply issues, non-performance, quality deficiencies, interruptions in Ready-Mix Concrete (RMC) supply, and the repeated grievances raised by the Applicant with the Petitioner. 11. The Applicant/Corporate Debtor also seeks to place on record reconciliation statements, internal notes, and cost assessments prepared across different project sites. These documents capture the financial implications of RDC's failure to supply adequate and quality concrete in a timely manner. They include comparative assessments showing variance between quantities billed by the Petitioner and quantities actually accepted or certified by the Applicant's clients. These records form the basis of the recoverable amounts claimed by the Applicant and support it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Company Petition) has failed to show that the aforesaid documents were not in its custody/possession or despite due diligence, the Applicant could not discover them or that there was a sufficient cause by which the Applicant was prevented from placing those documents on record of this Tribunal." 10. We are of the view that there is no occasion to submit the documents on record while giving a reply to the demand notice. Reply to demand notice is contemplated in sub-section (2) of Section 8 which provides as follows:- "8. Insolvency resolution by operational creditor. - (2) The corporate debtor shall, within a period of ten days of the receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice mentioned in sub-section (1) bring to the notice of the operational creditor - (a) existence of a dispute, [if any, or] record of the pendency of the suit or arbitration proceedings filed before the receipt of such notice or invoice in relation to such dispute; (b) the [payment] of unpaid operational debt- (i) by sending an attested copy of the record of electronic transfer of the unpaid amount from the bank account of the corporate debtor; or (ii) by se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication under Section 7 IBC in Form 1. In the absence of any express provision which either prohibits or sets a time-limit for filing of additional documents, it cannot be said that the adjudicating authority committed any illegality or error in permitting the appellant Bank to file additional documents. Needless however, to mention that depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is inordinate delay, the adjudicating authority might, at its discretion, decline the request of an applicant to file additional pleadings and/or documents, and proceed to pass a final order. In our considered view, the decision of the adjudicating authority to entertain 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." 12. In paragraph 89, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down that there is no bar to the filing of documents at any time until a final order either admitting or dismissing the application has been passed. Paragraph 89 has not been brought into the notice of the Court. It is true that it is the discre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accepted. Revision Petition before the Madras High Court was rejected against which the Appeal was filed. Allowing the Appeal in paragraphs 9, 10 & 11, following was held:- "9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3). 10. Coming to the present case, the defendants have filed an application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the documents along with the written statement. They have stated that these documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage. It cannot be disput....