In the matter of Rajeev Gupta v. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd The Standard Chartered Bank Singapore-respondent filed a demand notice to the Corporate Debtor-appellant requesting payment in accordance with S. 8 IBC, however, it was ineffective because no payment was made. In light of this, the respondent chose to submit an S. 9 application supported by the Assignment Deed and six bills. The Corporate Debtor did not allege that the Assignment Deed was improperly stamped in accordance with the Stamp Act of 1899 in response to the application. In the meantime, the Corporate Debtor requested that the Adjudicating Authority examine the Assignment Deed in accordance with S. 33(2) IBC, but the request was denied. The Corporate Debtor also sought review by the NCLAT, but that request was also denied.
By order dated November 25, 2022, the adjudicating authority accepted the respondent’s S. 9 of the IBC application and declared the assignment deed to be admissible in evidence. The Corporate Debtor filed the current appeal before the NCLAT contesting the impugned order dated 25-11-2022 made by the adjudicating authority.
- Whether a document that is not properly stamped should be thrown out in accordance with Section 35 of the Stamp Act of 1899
- Whether the opposing party, who had the chance to contest the inclusion of the document, had admitted it throughout the proceedings.
Analysis of court decision
When a document is used as evidence and there is no objection, the division bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain and Justice Mr Naresh Salecha of the NCLAT observed that the document cannot be afterwards discarded or ignored.
The Corporate Debtor first brought up the question of the Assignment Deed’s inadmissibility during the oral arguments on the application under Section 9 IBC, according to NCLAT, but after the Adjudicating Authority rejected it, the Corporate Debtor filed a Miscellaneous Application for the same reasons. The Miscellaneous Application was dismissed, and the appeal for the same application was also dismissed. A document cannot be dismissed after it has been relied upon and is not being opposed to, according to the NCLAT. The NCLAT further ruled that Section 36 of the Act is applicable in the current case. The NCLAT dismissed the current appeal because it lacked merit.