BPL Limited v. National Company Law Tribunal Kochi Bench
Under Rule 55 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, read with the inherent power in Rule 11, the Tribunal may allow pleadings after the reply with leave and on terms, so it cannot refuse additional objections merely because the Code or Rules have no express provision.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-10-10
BPL Limited, facing a section 7 petition from a lender, was given 96 hours to file objections and later sought to add objections and documents. The NCLT refused, saying neither the Code nor the Rules allowed additional objections, though it would take some documents on record to a limited extent. The High Court held this to be wrong and ordered the objections to be considered.
What happened
The petitioner company had obtained credit facilities from the second respondent, which began section 7 proceedings before the NCLT, Kochi Bench. The petitioner appeared on 17 April 2026, was given 96 hours to file objections and filed them on 20 April 2026. The matter was heard by a Division Bench for two days after the order of 27 April 2026. On 6 May 2026 the petitioner applied under Rules 11 and 55 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 to file additional objections with documents. By the impugned order of 4 June 2026, the NCLT held that there was no provision under the Code or the Rules to entertain additional objections and that the documents were within the petitioner's knowledge at the time of the reply, but allowed them to be relied on to a limited extent. On 5 June 2026 the High Court stayed further proceedings on the section 7 petition.
Questions before the court
- Can the NCLT refuse additional objections and documents from a corporate debtor on the ground that the Code and Rules do not provide for them?
Why the court ruled this way
The Court pointed to Rule 55, under which no pleadings subsequent to the reply may be presented except by the leave of the Tribunal on such terms as it thinks fit, so the NCLT has full power to accept later pleadings after granting leave (paragraph 11). The petitioner had been given only 96 hours to reply, and its stated reason for additional material was explained in its application; under Rule 55 read with Rule 11 the NCLT ought to have entertained the objections and documents, and its own order allowed the documents in part (paragraph 12). The Supreme Court in Dena Bank v. Shivakumar Reddy held that there is no bar in law to amending pleadings in a section 7 application or filing additional documents, and the same yardstick applies to the debtor's objections (paragraph 13). As held in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company, a challenge to the order is justified where natural justice is violated (paragraph 14).
Controlling point
The NCLT should have accepted the additional objections and documents under Rule 55 and Rule 11, and its finding that no provision allows them cannot stand.
Order and next steps
The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order of 4 June 2026 was set aside. It was declared that the objections and additional documents raised by the petitioner on 6 May 2026 must be considered by the Tribunal while considering the section 7 petition.
Practical implications
A corporate debtor that needs to add to its objections in a section 7 matter should apply for leave under Rule 55 and Rule 11 with reasons, noting the short time it was given to reply, and can rely on this ruling and on Dena Bank v. Shivakumar Reddy.
Limits of this ruling
- The Court only directed the Tribunal to consider the objections and documents; it did not decide the section 7 petition or the merits of the objections.
Law and judgment source
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, section 7
- National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, rules 11 and 55
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established.
Source checked: 2026-10-10 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 1–14 · Later case history: not verified. Verify appeals, stays and subsequent orders before reliance.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.