Tribunal rules perjury jurisdiction cannot address pleading omissions once primary proceedings are adjudicated and resolved.
In a significant ruling, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in New Delhi has dismissed an application filed by Tollman International Private Limited against Capstech Network Private Limited, seeking inquiry into alleged perjury. The application was filed under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, in conjunction with Sections 227 and 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 215 and 379 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Tollman International accused Capstech Network of failing to disclose part-payments of Rs. 20,00,000 in the pleadings of an insolvency petition, CP (IB) No. 2/ND/2024, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. However, the Tribunal, comprising Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram, Member (Judicial), and Shri Atul Chaturvedi, Member (Technical), determined that the alleged omissions did not result in any beneficial order for Capstech Network, as the insolvency petition had been dismissed on grounds of not meeting the Rs. 1 crore threshold after considering the part-payments.
The Tribunal emphasized that the exercise of perjury jurisdiction requires the omission to have resulted in a beneficial order, and that it should be expedient in the interests of justice. In this case, the Tribunal found the essential criteria unsatisfied, noting that the alleged suppression was resolved during adjudication, and that the final decision considered the financial adjustments.
The Tribunal also highlighted the non-maintainability of the application, given that the principal proceedings were finalized on January 7, 2025, rendering the Tribunal functus officio regarding collateral issues. The ruling references the Supreme Court's affirmation in Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh that once substantive proceedings are concluded, miscellaneous applications generally lack maintainability if they seek to reopen concluded matters.
The decision underscores the Tribunal's stance that perjury jurisdiction is not a tool for addressing every pleading defect or omission, especially in cases where the core matter has been adjudicated and resolved. The Tribunal concluded that the application did not present exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of extraordinary powers.
Bottom line:-
Perjury jurisdiction under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 cannot be invoked for mere pleading defects or omissions, especially when the primary proceedings have already been adjudicated upon, and the alleged suppression has been addressed during the adjudication.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 227, 229; Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 215, 379; Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016; Companies Act, 2013 Section 424(4).
