Court records are presumed accurate unless properly disputed: NCLAT

Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs Majinder Singh Sandhu & Ors. (NCLAT Delhi)

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, has underscored the sanctity of judicial records and the importance of procedural timelines by dismissing an appeal that sought to challenge recorded proceedings without a formal correction application. The ruling, in the case of Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs Majinder Singh Sandhu & Ors., reinforces the principle that court records are presumed accurate unless properly disputed and emphasizes the necessity of timely pleadings for efficient case resolution, thereby preventing prolonged litigation.

The matter originated from an application, I.A. No. 3143 of 2022, before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, concerning the formation of the Committee of Creditors (COC). On May 2, 2025, the NCLT heard arguments from the applicant, counsel for Respondent No. 12, and the Resolution Professional. During this hearing, counsel for Respondent No. 12 was specifically queried whether a confirmation had been received from the Resolution Professional regarding a letter dated January 14, 2021. The counsel affirmed no such receipt had been obtained or documented. Critically, the Tribunal directed all parties to file written submissions within ten days, explicitly noting that arguments had been “heard,” and listed the matter for compliance on May 19, 2025. This indicated a closure of the oral argument phase.

On May 19, 2025, the NCLT issued a subsequent order, reaffirming its previous directive. It explicitly stated, “Arguments have already closed by order dated 02.05.2025.” It again instructed all parties to file written submissions within a week, rescheduling the matter for June 4, 2025, for further compliance.

Following these directives, the Appellants, specifically representing Respondents No. 7, 10, and 11 in the original NCLT proceedings, filed a new application, I.A. 2398 of 2025. This application, invoking Rule 11 read with Rule 15 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, sought the Tribunal’s liberty to place on record a response or reply affidavit to the original application, I.A. 3143 of 2022. The Appellants contended that while the NCLT had granted permission for written submissions, such submissions could not be effectively presented or filed without a preceding formal reply to the main application, arguing that a reply forms the basis for subsequent written arguments.

However, the NCLT, in its impugned order dated May 21, 2025, rejected I.A. 2398 of 2025. The Tribunal’s reasoning was straightforward: since it had already directed parties to file written submissions by its May 19, 2025 order, the present application for filing a reply was deemed redundant and untimely, arriving after the arguments had concluded. Furthermore, the NCLT’s order raised a significant concern by directing its Registry to submit a report explaining how the reply, which was the subject of I.A. 2398 of 2025, had been allowed and accepted for filing by the registry, given that arguments in the main application were already closed by the May 2, 2025 order. This clearly signaled the NCLT’s disapproval of the late submission.

During the NCLAT proceedings, the Counsel for the Appellant reiterated their stance, arguing that the NCLT’s permission to file written submissions inherently implied the ability to first file a reply, as a reply is foundational to any subsequent written arguments.

Conversely, the Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 10 vigorously opposed the Appellant’s plea. They contended that the Appellant should not be granted additional time to file a reply, particularly since arguments had already been declared closed. The Respondent’s counsel specifically referred to a NCLT order dated May 15, 2023, wherein an advocate, Mr. Majinder Singh, had appeared on behalf of Respondents No. 5, 7, 10, and 11. At that time, no reply to I.A. 3143 of 2022 had been filed by these respondents. This reference served to highlight the Appellant’s prior opportunity to file a reply, which was not utilized, thereby weakening their current claim of necessity.

In response to this, the Appellant’s counsel countered by asserting that the May 15, 2023, recording of Mr. Majinder Singh’s presence on behalf of Respondents No. 7, 10, and 11 was erroneous. They maintained that there was, in fact, no representation for these specific respondents on that date, directly challenging the factual accuracy of the NCLT’s official proceeding record.

The NCLAT, after hearing arguments from both parties and carefully considering the procedural history, decisively addressed the Appellant’s claim regarding the alleged misrepresentation in the NCLT’s record. The Tribunal relied on a pivotal and long-established legal precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. (1982 AIR 1249), decided on July 28, 1982. This landmark judgment unequivocally stipulates that the record of a court is presumed to be correct and conclusive unless and until a formal application is made to the very same court for its correction, in the event of any perceived error or factual inaccuracy.

The NCLAT specifically noted that no such application had been filed by the Appellant to dispute the accuracy of the May 15, 2023, order, particularly concerning the recording of Mr. Majinder Singh’s presence for the specified respondents. Consequently, the Tribunal found the Appellant’s assertion of misrepresentation to be without legal basis in the absence of a proper challenge to the court’s own record.

Furthermore, the Appellate Tribunal strongly concurred with the NCLT’s stance on the finality of arguments and the timely submission of pleadings. It observed that allowing the Appellant to file a reply at such a late stage, after arguments had already been concluded on May 2, 2025, would establish an undesirable and unsustainable practice. Such a practice, the NCLAT reasoned, would inevitably create an interminable cycle of pleadings, thereby obstructing the prompt, efficient, and conclusive resolution of cases. This would undermine the very essence of judicial finality and procedural discipline.

In light of these well-established legal principles and the specific procedural facts of the case, the NCLAT concluded that the arguments put forth by the Appellant’s counsel lacked merit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. This judgment reinforces the critical importance of diligence and adherence to procedural timelines in litigation, upholding the reliability of judicial records, and promoting the effective and expeditious administration of justice. It serves as a clear procedural reminder for all parties engaged in Tribunal proceedings.

FULL TEXT OF THE NCLAT JUDGMENT/ORDER

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 9t^h May, 2025 and 21^st May, 2025 passed by the NCLT, New Delhi.

The matter pertains to I.A. No.3143 of 2022 which came to be filed by the Respondent herein for the constitution of COC. On 2^nd May, 2025, the Tribunal passed the following Order:-

“Heard the arguments on behalf of the Applicant, Ld. Counsel for R-12 as well as Resolution Professional. Ld. Counsel for R-12 was asked whether R-12 got any confirmation from RP regarding the receipt of the letter dated Mamta 02.05.2025 14.01.2021. Ld. Counsel for R-12 submitted that they did not get any receipt from RP and R-12 has filed no such document in this regard. All the parties are directed to file written submissions within ten days. List the matter for compliance on 19.05.2025.”

On 19t^h May, 2025, the Tribunal passed the following Order:-

“IA/3143/ND/2022

This Tribunal by order dated 02.05.2025 passed the following order:

“Heard the arguments on behalf of the Applicant, Ld. Counsel for R-12 as well as Resolution Professional. Ld. Counsel for R-12 was asked whether R-12 got any confirmation from RP regarding the receipt of the letter dated Mamta 02.05.2025 14.01.2021. Ld. Counsel for R­12 submitted that they did not get any receipt from RP and R-12 has filed no such document in this regard. All the parties are directed to file written submissions within ten days. List the matter for compliance on 19.05.2025.”

Arguments have already closed by order dated 02.05.2025. All the parties are directed to file written submissions within a week’s time.

List on 04.06.2025.”

Thereafter, the Appellant filed I.A. 2398 of 2025, invoking Rule 15 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 for filing Reply on behalf of Respondents No.7, 10 and 11 in I.A. 3143 of 2022. The said Application has been rejected by the Tribunal by the impugned Order dated 21st May, 2025 which read as under:

“New IA/2398/ND/2025

This is an application under Rule 11 read with Rule 15 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 seeking liberty of this Hon’ble Tribunal to place on record the response/ reply affidavit on behalf of respondent no(s). 7, 10 & 11 therein to I.A. no. 3143 of 2022.

This Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 19.05.2025, had directed the parties to file written submissions within a week. Therefore, the present application i.e. IA/2398/ND/2025 stands dismissed as rejected.

Registry is directed to submit a report with an explanation how they have allowed and accepted the above said reply when the arguments had already been closed vide order dated 02.05.2025.”

Learned Counsel for Appellant has submitted that though the Tribunal has granted permission to file written submissions but without the Reply written submissions cannot be filed. On other hand, Counsel for Respondents No.1 to 10 has submitted that the Appellant cannot be given time to file Reply except for written submissions. He has referred to an Order passed by the Tribunal on 15t^h May, 2025 where Mr. Majinder Singh, Advocate had appeared on behalf of Respondents No.5, 7, 10 and 11 and no Reply was filed to the Application bearing I.A. 3143 of 2022. The proceeding recorded on 15t^h May, 2023 is reproduced as under:-

“IA/3143/ND/2022

Heard the submissions made by Proxy-Counsel for the Resolution Professional in IA/3143/ND/2022. Proxy-Counsel for Resolution Professional submitted that main counsel is on his legs before another Court and prayed for an adjournment. Remaining IAs and main matter be fixed for 01.06.2023.”

In this regard, Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that there was no representation on behalf of the Respondents No.7, 10 and 11 and the presence of Mr. Majinder Singh has been wrongly recorded.

We have heard Counsel for the parties. It has been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Maharashtra vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr” decided on 28 July, 1982 – 1982 AIR 1249 that the record of the Court is correct until and unless an application is made to the same Court for any correction in case there is any error. No such application was filed by the Appellant that there was no representation on behalf of Respondents No.7, 10 and 11. The Appellant after the arguments were closed on 7t^h May, 2025 cannot permitted to file the reply now because if this practice is allowed to be followed then there shall be no end to the filing of the pleadings and the cases cannot be concluded.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in the arguments of the Counsel for the Appellant and as such the present Appeal is dismissed.