Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Global Coal And Mining Private Limited vs Anand Transport Private Limited

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal11 February 2026

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The reasoning here is thin but present: the Tribunal holds that an order admitting subsequent documents on the record, where those documents may bear on the issues between the parties, does not warrant interference on appeal, and that a party against whom such documents are admitted is entitled to an opportunity to rebut them by additional reply and the other side to a rejoinder.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 244 of 2026 &I.A. No. 889 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF: Global Coal and Mining Private Limited ...Appellants Versus Anand Transport Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand Varma, Ms. Apoorva Pandey and Ms. Alina Merin, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Anshuman Singh and Mr. Gaurav Choudhary, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

11.02.2026: Heard counsel for the appellant as well as Ld. Counsel for

the respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.12.2025 passed

by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court-VI in IA No.

1820/2025. IA was filed by the Operational Creditor for bringing certain

additional document on the record for effective and proper adjudication of the

matter. The appellants filed an objection to the said application but

Adjudicating Authority after hearing both the parties have allowed the

application.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that although the

Adjudicating Authority has accepted the additional document on record but

no opportunity was given to rebut to the corporate debtor. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that opportunity to file objection was given to the

appellant.

4. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that order

accepting additional documents does not warrant any interference. All

documents were subsequent documents which may have relevance on the

issues between the parties, we thus do not find any reason to interfere with

the order accepting the additional documents. However, appellant is entitled

for opportunity to rebut the documents. We allow two weeks time to file

additional reply to the additional documents along with relevant documents,

if any.

5. The Operational Creditor shall also have two weeks time to file rejoinder

along with the documents, if any. The Court had accepted the documents on

the record subject to objections.

With the aforesaid, we dispose of the appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD

2 of 2 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 244 of 2026

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free