In RAB Enterprises v. Awfis Space Solutions, NCLT underscores discretion under Rule 55 of NCLT Rules to admit documents post-reply, balancing natural justice with procedural timelines
In a significant decision dated August 20, 2026, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, permitted RAB Enterprises (India) Private Limited to file additional documents in its defence against a Section 9 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 petition filed by Awfis Space Solutions Limited. The Tribunal, however, imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 on RAB Enterprises for the delay in filing the documents.
The case arose from Awfis Space Solutions' petition under Section 9 of the IBC seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against RAB Enterprises. The Corporate Debtor (RAB Enterprises) sought to place on record crucial documents to establish the existence of a pre-existing dispute prior to the issuance of the statutory demand notice dated 28.06.2024, which is a valid ground to reject the Section 9 petition as per law.
RAB Enterprises contended that the documents were not filed earlier due to restricted access caused by changes in its secretarial and compliance staff and simultaneous investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The documents included supplementary replies to the demand notice, extracts from GST returns (Form GSTR-2B and GSTR-3B), letters to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) highlighting pending disputes and allegations, and arbitration statements of claim.
Awfis Space Solutions opposed the application, arguing that all documents predated the original reply and were within RAB's possession, hence the delay was unjustified and aimed at delaying the proceedings. They also relied on a prior order of the Tribunal dated December 5, 2025, which denied the filing of additional documents, and highlighted that Rule 41(1) of NCLT Rules requires documents to be filed along with the reply. The Respondent further submitted that the alleged disputes referenced in the documents did not pertain to the specific transaction underlying the Section 9 petition.
The Tribunal, after thorough analysis, acknowledged that while pleadings were complete and the application was filed nearly eleven months after the reply, the reasons furnished' including personnel changes and PMLA investigations' constituted sufficient cause. It emphasized that the Tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 procedures but is guided by the principles of natural justice under Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Relying heavily on the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment in Gannon Dunkerley & Company Ltd. v. RDC (2025 SCC Online NCLAT 1311) and the Supreme Court ruling in Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy (2021 10 SCC 330), the Tribunal held that Rule 55 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 confers the power to admit subsequent pleadings and documents on showing sufficient cause and that such discretion must be exercised judicially and objectively.
Recognizing the relevance of the documents to the central issue of pre-existing dispute, the Tribunal allowed their filing but imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund to balance the interests of justice given the delay and the time-bound nature of insolvency proceedings under Section 9(5) of the IBC.
The order underscores the Tribunal's flexible approach to procedural aspects in insolvency cases, emphasizing substance over form while maintaining procedural discipline. Parties are reminded to diligently comply with timelines, but also reassured that genuine difficulties and relevant evidence can be considered in the interest of natural justice.
Bottom Line:
Filing of additional documents after the reply in NCLT is permissible under Rule 55 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, and must be allowed in the interest of natural justice if sufficient cause for delay is shown, provided that relevant documents are being introduced.
Statutory provision(s):
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Section 9, National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 Rule 41(1), Rule 43, Rule 55, Companies Act, 2013 Section 424, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XI Rules 7, 9, 10
