NCLT Mumbai Dismisses Perjury Plea Against Omkara Assets Reconstruction Over Account Differences

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, on 3 September dismissed perjury proceedings against Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd, holding that alleged discrepancies in statements of account and debt records did not warrant an inquiry by a Magistrate.

A Bench comprising Technical Member Prabhat Kumar and Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey dismissed the applications filed by Aditya Raheja under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in insolvency proceedings concerning GSTAAD Hotels Pvt Ltd. and Neo Capricorn Plaza Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal held:

“It is evident from aforesaid binding precedents that not only the perjury proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances, but also there should be deliberation falsehood on a matter of substance and not merely because of inaccuracy in the statements. As noted above, the Applicant is seeking initiation of perjury proceedings on account of reconciliation differences in these statements, and legal issues arising from the financial transaction between corporate debtor and respondent, including its predecessor.”

Raheja alleged discrepancies in statements of account dated 15 October 2023 and 30 April 2024, the recall notice dated 15 February 2023, the NeSL default declaration dated 9 February 2023 and a Chartered Accountant's report dated 15 March 2025. He also alleged inconsistencies concerning repayment history, ECLGS exposure and Omkara's status in CERSAI records.

Omkara opposed the applications, arguing that the allegations had already been considered in the Section 7 insolvency proceedings and that differences in the figures arose due to factors including TDS reconciliation and penal interest.

The Tribunal noted that the documents were placed before it to determine the occurrence and amount of default, which had been disputed by the corporate debtors. It further noted that Raheja had not alleged that the documents were false or fabricated, although they may have contained inaccurate or incomplete information. It held:

“It is not case of the applicant that either of these documents was false or fabricated, though such documents may had inaccurate/incomplete information. It is trite that the financial transaction between two parties before the Court are always subject to confirmation/reconciliation of other party, and legal competence in relation to claim is always subject to determination before the court of competent jurisdiction.”

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Bench held that perjury proceedings should be initiated only in exceptional circumstances involving deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance, and not merely because of inaccuracies in statements.

Accordingly, the NCLT dismissed both applications.

For Applicant: Advocate Akash Agarwal

For Respondent: Advocate Ryan D'Souza

For SRA: Advocate Vishnu Shriram

For RP: Advocate Prateek Seksaria