AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
13.02.2026: I.A. No. 990 of 2026
We find sufficient cause shown for condonation of 5 days delay. Delay condoned. IA No. 990 of 2026 is disposed of.
CA (AT) (Ins) No. 271 of 2026
Heard counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the respondent.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.12.2025 by which an IA No. 196 of 2025 filed by the Operational Creditor has been allowed permitting them to amend the application. Paragraph-2 of the order notices follows:-
“The present application is an amendment application preferred under Rule 155 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules 2016 pursuant to the leave granted by this Tribunal vide order dated 27.05.2O25 in CP(IB) No.41C8/2024. The amendment has been sought to incorporate certain transactions that occurred after service of the section 8 notice but were inadvertently omitted in the original filing. These include a payment of Rs. 1,30,00,000 made by the Corporate Debtor on 12.04.2024 and the return of materials worth Rs. 35,48,570 by the Operational Creditor. After giving effect to these adjustments the outstanding operational debt claimed stands at Rs. 2,85,12,301 and the Applicant asserts the date of default as 09.03.2024.”
Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in the application filed by the Operational Creditor all relevant facts were not disclosed and by virtue of amendment the payments received subsequent to demand notice was sought to be introduced denying the rights of the corporate debtor to raise permissible objections to the Section 9 application. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellants were given right to file objections.
We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
In paragraph-28 of the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority has made following observations:-
“Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the section 9 petition or on the allegations of fraud, settlement, or forgery raised by the Respondent, which shall be adjudicated at the appropriate stage in the main petition.”
The allowing of the amendment cannot be read to mean that the pleadings accepted are findings of the court. Parties are free to raise their objections and the liberty granted in paragraph-28 amply protect the interest of the appellant to raise all objections at the time of hearing of Section 9 application. With regard to amendments with the pleadings in Section 9 application it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dena Bank vs. C. Shivkumar Reddy & Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 330 that amendments can be allowed by the Adjudicating Authority at any stage. We thus are of the view that order allowing the amendment need no interference, however, we observe that liberty and protection granted to the appellant in para-28 amply protect the right to raise all objections at the time of hearing of Section 9 application. With these observations, we dismiss the appeal.