2026 (6) TMI 771

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short "IBC") before the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner herein entered appearance before the 1st respondent on 17.04.2026. It was granted 96 hours to file its objections. Admittedly, the petitioner filed its statement of objections on 20.04.2026. The matter was also considered as seen from Ext.P2D on 27.04.2026 by a single member of the Tribunal. However, pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P6 order dated 27.04.2026, insofar as Ext.P3 also fell within the ambit of Ext.P6 and the stipulations contained therein, the matter was posted before a Division Bench and heard for two days. 2. Later, the petitioner herein submitted Ext.P7 on 06.05.2026 with reference to the provisions under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion. 3. On 05.06.2026, taking note of the contentions raised, especially with respect to the findings in Ext.P1 that there are no provisions under the Rules for entertaining additional objections, this Court had stayed all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3. 4. The 2nd respondent entered appearance and has also filed I.A. No.1 of 2026, seeking to vacate the interim order granted as above. 5. I have heard Sri. Joseph Kodianthara, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri. Cyriac Tom, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Gayathri Krishnan, the learned Central Government Counsel for the 1st respondent herein as well as Sri. Anil Nair, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri. S. Sujin, the learned counsel for the 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l objection filed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. 9. I find much force in the contention raised by Sri. Kodianthara since as rightly pointed out by him simultaneous with the rejection of Ext.P7, the NCLT has posted the matter on the very next day for hearing. 10. Furthermore, the question to be considered is as to whether the ultimate rejection of Ext.P7 pursuant to Ext.P1 requires to be sustained or not. 11. The Tribunal in Ext.P1, as noticed earlier, has mainly pointed out the lack of relevant provisions under the Rules for entertaining the additional objections. Rule 55 of the Rules specifically provides as under: "No pleadings, subsequent to the reply, shall be presented....