Additional Documents Need Not Be Filed With Reply To Demand Notice U/S 8(2) Of IBC: NCLAT New Delhi

The appeal was filed challenging the impugned order passed by the NCLT, Mumbai. By the impugned order, the tribunal rejected the IA No. 3245 of 2025 filed by the corporate debtor for taking additional documents on record.

The operational creditor filed an application u/s 9 of the IBC seeking initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor. When the matter was taken over by the adjudicating authority, it directed the corporate debtor to file its reply. Later on, after filing of the reply, the applicants filed the rejoinder. However, on 27.06.2025, the parties showed their willingness to explore settlement, but the negotiation failed, and the parties couldn't reach the settlement.

Accordingly, the corporate debtor filed IA No. 3245 of 2025, praying to take on record the additional document filed by way of additional affidavit. The I.A. was rejected by the adjudicating authority, citing the reason that the corporate debtor could have either done that along with the response to the demand notice or at the time of filing his reply. Aggrieved by which the corporate debtor has preferred the present appeal.

Contention of the Parties

The appellant contended that it could not place certain documents on record while filing its reply, and the documents that ought to be placed are the contemporaneous correspondence showing the deficiency in services and the loss suffered by the appellant. Thus, it becomes important for the purpose of a Section 9 application. The appellant also highlighted that it neither took any adjournment nor did it cause any delay at any of the stages.

However, the respondent (operational creditor) submitted that in response to its demand notice, the corporate debtor only showed verbal concerns regarding the irregularities. It also highlighted that no reference was made to any correspondence. It also submitted that the corporate debtor has not proved that the said documents were not available to it.

Decision of the Adjudicating Authority

The NCLAT didn't subscribe to the view of the NCLT, Mumbai, and observed that section 8 of the IBC doesn't allow placing on record any documents while responding to a demand notice, except the ones mentioned in sub-section 2.

It also observed that the corporate debtor has referred to some correspondence between the parties in its reply, and by way of application, it is attempting to bring it on record in order to substantiate its reply.

The bench discussed that it is true that all the documents relied upon should be placed on record while filing the reply, but the question of submitting additional documents arises only after the completion of pleadings. The bench discussed Rule 55 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which empowers the NCLT to grant leave if it may deem fit after the filing of a reply, and ruled that the filing of an additional document is contemplated by this rule.

The tribunal also observed that the adjudicating authority's reliance on the ruling of Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy and Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 330 is misplaced, as it has ignored the discussion in paragraph 89 of the judgment. In paragraph 89 of the ruling, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that the additional documents can be filed at any time before the passing of the final order.

The tribunal lastly set aside the impugned order and directed the adjudicating authority to take additional documents on record. It also made it clear that it has only examined the issue of whether the document should be placed on record or not, and it has not commented upon the relevancy of the documents.

Case Name: Gannon Dunkerley & Company Ltd. v. RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1222 of 2025

Bench: Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical)

Judgment Date: August 22, 2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order