Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Madhu Fertilizers Limited vs K.P.R Agrochem Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal15 July 2022Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Authority may accept a rejoinder affidavit filed after the rejoinder was earlier returned for want of prior leave, where leave has since been granted; no error arises in admitting it on record. Where a rejoinder introduces new documents on which the other party has had no opportunity to respond, the party affected is entitled to be permitted to file a sur-rejoinder before the Adjudicating Authority proceeds further on the matter.

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) (Insolvency) No. 801 of 2022IN THE MATTER OF:

Madhu Fertilisers Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

K. P. R. Agrochem Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Dhirendra Nath Sharma and Mr. Hasan Murtaza, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Advocate.

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

15.07.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

counsel appearing for the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against the

order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal),

Cuttack Bench dated 13.05.2022 by which the application filed by the

Operational Creditor to amend the application and accept the rejoinder has

been allowed.

2. The Amendment Application was filed for amending Part IV of the

petition, which has been clearly noticed and dealt by the Adjudicating

Authority in Para 8 of the impugned order. The amendment does not in any

manner change the complexion of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that initially the rejoinder

affidavit was not accepted but later Adjudicating Authority accepted it. It is

Cont'd..../ 2

stated that in the rejoinder certain new documents have been filed by the

Applicant.

4. The Adjudicating Authority has noticed that earlier the rejoinder was

filed but it was retuned because there was no prior permission obtained and

now the applicant filed the rejoinder seeking leave of the court. Leave having

been granted by the Adjudicating Authority, we do not find any error in the

order of the Adjudicating Authority accepting rejoinder affidavit on record.

4. Now, the only grievance raised by the Appellant is that certain new

documents have been filed in the rejoinder affidavit but no opportunity has

been given to the Appellant to reply. In this regard, we are of the view that

Appellant may be given opportunity to file Sur-rejoinder within three weeks

from today. The Adjudicating Authority shall proceed with the matter after

the Sur-rejoinder, as permitted by this order, is filed.

5. We do not find any ground to entertain this Appeal. The Appeal is

disposed of with aforesaid observations.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial)

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 801 of 2022

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