NCLAT Denies Post-Argument Filing of Reply; Upholds Finality of Tribunal Proceedings

The NCLAT denied the filing of a reply after conclusion of arguments and upheld the finality of proceedings before the Tribunal.

On 2 June 2025, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), reviewed a set of two company appeals and held that once arguments are concluded, no further replies can be entertained. The Tribunal emphasised that, in the absence of a formal application seeking correction, the court record is presumed accurate. Permitting pleadings at a belated stage would undermine procedural discipline and obstruct the finality of adjudication.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dealt with an appeal challenging two orders dated 9th May 2025 and 21st May 2025 passed by the NCLT, New Delhi, in the context of I.A. No. 3143 of 2022. The core issue concerned the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), wherein the Respondent had filed the said application. The Tribunal had earlier heard arguments on 2nd May 2025 and recorded that Respondent No.12 had failed to provide any confirmation or documentary evidence regarding the Resolution Professional’s receipt of a letter dated 14.01.2021. The Tribunal directed all parties to file written submissions within ten days and listed the matter for compliance on 19th May 2025.

On 19th May 2025, the Tribunal reiterated that arguments had concluded on 2nd May 2025 and provided a final opportunity for written submissions within a week, listing the matter next on 4th June 2025. However, subsequent to this, the Appellant moved I.A. No. 2398 of 2025 under Rules 11 and 15 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking to place on record a reply on behalf of Respondents No. 7, 10, and 11 in I.A. 3143 of 2022. The Tribunal, via its order dated 21st May 2025, rejected the said application on the ground that arguments had already closed and directions for written submissions had been issued. The Registry was also directed to provide an explanation for how the said reply came to be accepted despite the closure of arguments.

The Appellant contended that the Tribunal had permitted the filing of written submissions and that filing such submissions without a formal reply was untenable. The Respondents, however, opposed this argument, pointing out that no reply had been filed at the appropriate stage and referred to proceedings from 15th May 2025, where it was recorded that Advocate Mr. Majinder Singh had represented Respondents No. 5, 7, 10, and 11. The Appellant argued that this was a clerical error and there had been no actual representation for Respondents Nos 7, 10, and 11 on that date.

The NCLAT, while dismissing the appeal, held that court records are presumed correct unless corrected through an appropriate application. No such application for rectification was filed by the Appellant. It was also observed that allowing pleadings after the closure of arguments would lead to indefinite delays and frustrate the timely resolution of proceedings. Accordingly, the Appellate Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.

Mr. Sunil Fernandez, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Advocate, represented the Appellants.

Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr. Nipun Gautam, Advocates, appeared for Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 10.

Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates, appeared for the Respondent.

---

To access the full content related to this article, including the complete judgment text, detailed legal analysis, ratio decidendi, headnotes, cited case laws, and updates on relevant statutes and notifications, we invite you to subscribe to our premium service.

Click "Subscribe" to unlock these exclusive legal resources.

If you are already a subscriber, please explore these resources by clicking the following citation/link.

REEDLAW 2025 NCLAT Del 06503