Shri Sankalp Medical And Research ... vs Hridayam Heart And Vascular Institute

Shri Sankalp Medical and Research Institute ...Appellant Pvt. Ltd. Versus Hridayam Heart and Vascular Institute ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Chitranshul A. Sinha, Ms. Pallavi, Mr. Shivam Shorewala and Ms. Kakshita Bhargava, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Palash S. Singhai, Mr. Saswat K. Acharya and Mr. Harshal Sareen, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

02.06.2025 : This appeal is filed by the Corporate Debtor being aggrieved

by the order dated 29.04.2025 by which application for seeking permission to

file additional documents has been rejected. Counsel for the appellant has

submitted that the said documents are signed by both the parties which

includes emails as well.

2. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has submitted that

Section 9 application is filed by the respondent to which a detailed reply has

been filed. Rejoinder was filed to which sur-rejoinder was also filed. After all

these pleadings, the Tribunal passed the order on 27.03.2025 with the

following text. "Pleadings completed. List the matter for argument on

29.04.2025."

3. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that when the matter was

listed on 29.04.2025, the appellant herein, filed the application to place some

more documents on record. However, the same has been rejected by the

Tribunal on the ground that the documents do not relate to subsequent events rather all documents are of the year 2023 and enough opportunities had

already been given to the appellant to file the reply and sur-rejoinder. It is

also submitted by counsel for the respondent that the pleadings were

completed at one point of time, therefore, the case was listed for hearing on

20.05.2025. On the said date, it is submitted that the matter was argued by

the OC but counsel for the appellant herein sought time to argue the matter

and it was listed for hearing on 03.06.2025.

4. After hearing Counsel for the parties and keeping in view the aforesaid

circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error in the

impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The appellant is a legal entity who

knew about its rights for contesting the litigation initiated by the respondent

herein. The appellant filed a detailed reply to the application filed under

Section 9 and several opportunities were granted to file the sur-rejoinder as

well. It so happened that the Tribunal passed the order about the completion

of pleadings and listing the case for hearing on 29.04.2025 when the appellant

filed the application for placing some more documents. This practice cannot

be allowed and appellant cannot be permitted to file more documents at this

stage after completion of pleadings and specially when the arguments is being

heard. The respondent has already made his submission before the Ld.

Tribunal. In such circumstances, we do not find any error in the impugned

order and the appeal is thus dismissed. IAs, if any, pending are closed.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/RR

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 829 of 2025 2 of 2