2023 (10) TMI 534 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Validity of permission granted by the NCLT to Respondent / Petitioner/Operational Creditor to file the necessary amended copy with the Registry of this Tribunal - Permission granted even after inordinate delay of 2 and 1/2 years- HELD THAT - It must be borne in mind that Amendments are allowed in pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplying of litigations . All amendment ought to be allowed if the twin conditions are satisfied (i) of not working injustice to other side; (ii) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties - There is no rule limiting amendment to accidental errors. An amendment which is necessary for the just decision of a case can be allowed. Also that an amendment in general is not to be refused in a mechanical and casual manner. In fact the pleadings can be amended to substantiate to elucidate and expand the pre-existing facts already existing . Where an amendment does not constitute and addition of a new case but amounts to no more than adding to the facts already on record the amendment would be allowed even after the statutory period of limitation - An amendment which is necessary for the just decision of a case can be allowed. In the present case even though the Appellant / Respondent had come out with the plea that the amendment in pleadings was sought for by the Respondent / Petitioner in application with the inordinate delay of 2 years keeping in mind of a prime fact that the Amendment in pleadings is in imperative one for a proper effective and efficacious adjudication of the controversies involved in the main application on the file of the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal - this Tribunal comes to a consequent conclusion that application is a Bonafide one and to minimise litigation between the parties and also that No Party should suffer on account of technicalities of Law. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Amendment of pleadings in insolvency proceedings.
2. Delay in filing the amendment application.
3. Legal precedents on the amendment of default dates.
4. Impact of typographical errors in legal documents.

Summary:

Amendment of Pleadings in Insolvency Proceedings:

The Appellant/Corporate Debtor challenged the impugned order allowing the amendment of Part IV of Form 5 by the Respondent/Operational Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority permitted the amendment, citing the interest of natural justice and previous liberty granted to file such an application.

Delay in Filing the Amendment Application:

The Appellant contended that the amendment application was filed with an inordinate delay of 2.5 years. The Respondent argued that the delay was due to a typographical error and not a deliberate act, emphasizing that the amendment was necessary to correct the date of default from 23.10.2012 to 03.08.2018.

Legal Precedents on the Amendment of Default Dates:

The Appellant referenced several judgments, including Ramesh Kymal vs. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd. and Ramdas Dutta Vs. IBDI Bank Limited, arguing that the date of default cannot be changed. The Respondent countered with judgments like Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. vs. Bishal Jaiswal and Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth & Anr. Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain & Anr., which support the amendment of pleadings to correct errors.

Impact of Typographical Errors in Legal Documents:

The Tribunal emphasized that amendments are allowed to avoid unnecessary litigation and should be permitted if they do not cause injustice to the other party. The Tribunal noted that the amendment sought was due to a bona fide typographical error and was necessary for the effective adjudication of the case.

Result:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's order allowing the amendment. The Tribunal held that the amendment was bona fide and essential for resolving the real controversy between the parties. The connected IA991/2023 (for stay) was also closed.