NCLT Cannot Refuse Additional Objections Solely For Want Of Express Provision In IBC: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can permit additional objections in insolvency proceedings. It cannot reject such requests on the ground that there is no provision under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code or the NCLT Rules to entertain them.

Justice Harisankar V. Menon made the observation while allowing a petition filed by BPL Limited. The Court set aside an order of the NCLT, Kochi Bench, which had refused to entertain the company's additional objections in an insolvency proceeding initiated by Morgan Securities and Credits Private Limited.

Observing that Rule 55 of the NCLT Rules permits subsequent pleadings with the leave of the Tribunal, the Court held:

“Thus, the NCLT has every power and authority to accept the subsequent pleadings, presented after the original reply is filed after granting leave for presentation of those objections, upon such terms as the Tribunal deems fit.”

Applying the same standard to objections, the court held that it could be entertained.

“The same yardstick requires being applied with respect to the objections filed by the respondents in the proceedings also," the court held.

The case arose from insolvency proceedings initiated by Morgan Securities and Credits Private Limited against BPL Limited. BPL entered an appearance before the NCLT on April 17, 2026. It was granted 96 hours to file its objections. The company filed its objections on April 20, 2026.

On May 6, 2026, BPL filed an application under Rules 11 and 55 of the NCLT Rules. Through the application, it sought permission to place additional objections and documents on record.

By an order dated June 4, 2026, the NCLT rejected the request. It held that there were no provisions under the Code or the NCLT Rules to entertain additional objections. At the same time, the Tribunal permitted the accompanying documents to be relied upon to a limited extent. The permission was restricted to documents supporting the pleadings already contained in the objections filed on April 20, 2026.

Aggrieved by the order, BPL approached the High Court.

The High Court noted that BPL had been granted only 96 hours to file its original reply. It also noted the company's explanation that the short time available necessitated the filing of additional objections and documents.

Referring to Rules 11 and 55 of the NCLT Rules, the Court held:

“In my opinion, under Rule 55 read with the inherent power under Rule 11 of the Rules, the NCLT ought to have entertained the objections/additional documents.”

The Court further observed that the reasoning in the NCLT's order could not be sustained. It noted that the Tribunal had held there was no provision under the Rules to entertain additional objections. At the same time, it had permitted reliance on the additional documents to a limited extent.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dena Bank v. Shivakumar Reddy, the High Court observed that there is no bar in law to amendment of pleadings in an application under Section 7 of the IBC. It also observed that there is no bar to the filing of additional documents. Accoridng to the court the same standard must apply to objections as well.

The Court also observed that BPL had furnished sufficient reasons for presenting additional objections and documents.

Holding that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the additional objections sought to be placed on record, the Court observed:

“In such circumstances, especially since the petitioner only sought for an amendment of the objections filed, for raising additional objections, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the same.”

The court accordingly allowed the writ petition. It set aside the NCLT's order. The Court further declared that the additional objections and documents filed by BPL are required to be considered by the Tribunal while deciding the insolvency proceedings.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Joseph Kodianthara, Advocates Cyriac Tom and Varsha K Balakrishnan

For Respondents: Senior Advocate Anil Nair, Advocates Gayathri Krishnan, CGC and S Sujin