AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal revolves around perhaps the shortest of points one can get. In a Section 7 petition instituted by the respondent he has relied on the information with NeSL. According to the appellant the NeSL was given a wrong address by the respondent, to which its notices have gone. In short it wants to contest the very correctness of the information with NeSL vis-à-vis the debt in question. To bring on record, the appellant wanted to file a sur-rejoinder with the evidentiary materials supporting it. This was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority vide the impugned order dated 24.09.2026.
Ms. G. Vidushi takes notice for the respondent. Representing her, the learned senior counsel, Mr. E. Om Prakash submitted that the order of the Adjudicating Authority is in order since the NCLT Rules does not provides for filing of any sur-rejoinder after filing a rejoinder.
If the respondent is allergic to the expression ‘sur-rejoinder’, we now substitute it with an ‘affidavit’ which the appellant is now permitted to file highlighting whatever facts it wants to state through what he styled as ‘a sur-rejoinder’. The appellant is directed to do the same along with all supporting documents within a week from today. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.