Coffee Day Global Limited Vs Rechtsanwalt Dr. Christian Bachmann (NCLAT Chennai)
Amendment of Default Date Does Not Prove Default: NCLAT Preserves Coffee Day Global’s Defence
Introduction
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, has clarified that permitting an amendment to the date of default in an insolvency application does not establish the correctness of the revised date.
In Coffee Day Global Limited v. Rechtsanwalt Dr. Christian Bachmann, the Tribunal held that the operational creditor must independently prove the amended pleading. Contradictions between the revised date and documents already on record remain matters for examination by the adjudicating authority.
The order dated 29 October 2026 was passed by Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial), and Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical), in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 431/2026.
Background of the Appeal
The dispute arose from a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed against Coffee Day Global Limited.
The respondent was Dr. Christian Bachmann, acting as insolvency administrator of Coffee Day Gastronomie Und Kaffeehandels GmbH, an Austrian company.
During the proceedings, an application was made to amend the date of default stated in Part IV of Form 5, the application seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings against the corporate debtor.
The NCLT allowed the amendment. Coffee Day Global challenged that decision before the NCLAT, contending that changing the date conflicted with existing documentary material and prejudiced its defence.
Corporate Debtor Pointed to Conflicting Records
Coffee Day Global argued that the proposed amendment was inconsistent with the date of default already stated in the demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC.
It also relied on information previously furnished to the Information Utility, submitting that the revised pleading departed from the material already available on record.
According to the corporate debtor, the default date was a critical part of the creditor’s case. Allowing its alteration at that stage would seriously prejudice the company’s rights and interests.
The objection therefore concerned more than a change in wording. It questioned whether the creditor could advance a revised factual position despite earlier documents recording a different date.
Amendment and Proof Are Separate Questions
The NCLAT explained that a mere amendment of pleadings is not proof of the amended assertion.
Permission to change the default date only allows the creditor to place that revised case before the adjudicating authority. It does not mean that the date has been accepted as fact or that the creditor has discharged its evidentiary burden.
The operational creditor must still establish that the revised date is correct.
This distinction preserves the adjudicating authority’s responsibility to examine the evidence independently. An order allowing amendment cannot substitute for a finding, based on the record, that default occurred on the date now asserted.
Earlier Documents Remain Relevant
The Tribunal expressly addressed the discrepancies alleged between the amendment and the documents already produced.
It emphasised that the existing documents could not be withdrawn or permitted to be withdrawn. The revised pleading therefore would not erase the earlier documentary record.
Where multiple dates create inconsistencies, those inconsistencies must be considered through appreciation of evidence.
The demand notice and Information Utility material consequently remain relevant to testing the amended case. The NCLAT did not resolve which date was correct; it left that factual determination to the adjudicating authority hearing the Section 9 petition.
Creditor Continues to Bear the Burden
The Tribunal reiterated that the operational creditor remains responsible for proving the correctness of the date of default.
It did not shift that burden merely because the NCLT had permitted an amendment.
Equally, the order did not hold that the presence of differing dates automatically defeats the insolvency application. The significance of those differences must be assessed against the material placed before the NCLT.
The decision thus preserves both sides’ positions: the creditor may support its revised pleading, while the corporate debtor may challenge it using the existing record and its additional response.
Additional Reply Permitted Within Two Weeks
To protect Coffee Day Global’s opportunity to respond, the NCLAT directed it to file an additional reply within two weeks from the order.
That reply could explain its defence to the amendment, including the alleged conflict with the Section 8 demand notice and Information Utility information.
The Tribunal also required the adjudicating authority to give careful attention to the relevant facts when disposing of the Section 9 petition.
These directions allowed the dispute over the default date to be examined in the underlying proceedings rather than conclusively determined in the appeal against amendment.
Appeal Disposed of Without Costs
The NCLAT disposed of the appeal without costs, issuing the protective directions concerning proof, existing documents and the additional reply.
It did not set aside the permission to amend, pronounce the revised date correct, or direct admission of the insolvency petition.
The central principle is that permission to amend does not establish the amended facts. The creditor must prove its case, and the corporate debtor retains the right to expose inconsistencies before the NCLT decides the Section 9 application.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF NCLAT CHENNAI
1) This appeal is directed against the order of the NCLT allowing an application seeking for certain amendment to the petition filed under Section 9, IBC. The amendment relates to changing the date of default in paying the dues to operational creditor in part IV of Form 5 application. Aggrieved by the same, the corporate debtor is before us with this appeal.
2) Heard Mr. E. Om Prakash, Senior Advocate for the appellant and also Mr. Satymev Sabarn for the respondent.
3) The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the amendment sought is contrary to the proof already available on record, especially the date of default as given in demand notice under Section 8, IBC as well as the information provided to the Information Utility. The learned counsel added that changing a critical date at this point of time or the proceedings seriously prejudices the right and interest of the corporate debtor.
4) The law is too firmly settled to the effect that a mere amendment of pleading is not tantamount to proof of what is so amended. If the date of default is altered through amendment, it does not mean that it stands proved by the operational creditor, and that has to be independently established. As regards to the discrepancy in the proof already made available by the operational creditor, we underscore that these documents cannot be withdrawn or allowed to be withdrawn by the appellant. And, if there are multiple dates creating discrepancies, then it is a matter for appreciation of evidence on the place of IBC.
5) While we emphasise the fact that the operational creditor is still under a burden to establish the correctness of the date as has been given, we merely require the appellant herein to file an additional reply to the amendment so made within a period of two weeks from today, explaining its case in defence. We require the Adjudicating Authority to bestow its best care and attention to the facts placed before us, while disposing of the petition filed under Section 9 IBC. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No cost.
