NCLT Refuses Perjury Action Against Operational Creditor, Says Every Omission in Pleadings Does Not Warrant Prosecution

June 1, 2026 :The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench, has dismissed an application seeking perjury proceedings against an operational creditor, holding that not every omission or defect in pleadings amounts to an offence of giving false evidence. The Tribunal observed that the extraordinary power to initiate perjury proceedings must be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a deliberate falsehood that results in a material advantage and where prosecution is necessary in the interests of justice.

The order was passed by a Bench comprising Judicial Member Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram and Technical Member Atul Chaturvedi while deciding an interlocutory application filed by Tollman International Private Limited against Capstech Network Private Limited. The application was moved under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, read with Sections 227 and 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 215 and 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking initiation of criminal proceedings for alleged perjury.

The dispute originated from a commercial arrangement under which Capstech Network supplied computers, laptops and related components to Tollman International. According to the corporate debtor, although payments were regularly made, the operational creditor issued a demand notice claiming outstanding dues exceeding ₹1.04 crore and subsequently initiated insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) before the NCLT.

Tollman International alleged that after the demand notice, it made two part-payments of ₹10 lakh each, one before and another shortly after the filing of the insolvency petition. These payments, amounting to ₹20 lakh in total, were admittedly received by the operational creditor but were allegedly omitted from the insolvency petition, additional pleadings and oral submissions before the Tribunal. The applicant argued that this amounted to suppression of material facts and deliberate false statements before a judicial forum, thereby attracting offences relating to false evidence and perjury under the newly enacted criminal laws.

The corporate debtor further contended that proceedings before the NCLT are deemed to be judicial proceedings under Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013. It relied on Sections 227 and 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, dealing with false evidence, and Sections 215 and 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empower courts and tribunals to make complaints for prosecution in appropriate cases. It also cited Supreme Court and NCLAT decisions to argue that the Tribunal possesses jurisdiction to initiate perjury proceedings where false statements have been intentionally made.

Opposing the application, Capstech Network submitted that the insolvency petition had already been dismissed on 7 January 2025 because, after taking into account the part-payments, the operational debt no longer crossed the statutory threshold of ₹1 crore required for admission under Section 9 of the IBC. It argued that once the main insolvency proceedings had concluded, the Tribunal became functus officio and could not entertain a fresh interlocutory application seeking collateral relief. The operational creditor also maintained that the omission did not result in any unfair advantage since the Tribunal ultimately considered the correct financial position while deciding the insolvency case.

After examining the pleadings and rival submissions, the NCLT observed that the dispute essentially related to the computation and adjustment of the operational debt rather than fabrication of evidence or deliberate false testimony. The Tribunal noted that the alleged omission had already been addressed during adjudication of the main insolvency petition, where the part-payments were taken into consideration before dismissing the case.

Referring to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand and Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Tribunal reiterated that perjury proceedings should not be initiated merely because a pleading contains inaccuracies or omissions. The Bench emphasized that prosecution is justified only when there is a “deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance” and when initiating such proceedings is “expedient in the interests of justice.”

Explaining why the application could not succeed, the Tribunal observed, “Perjury jurisdiction cannot be invoked to penalize every pleading defect or omission, particularly where the matter has already been examined in the substantive proceedings and the Tribunal has adjudicated upon the correct financial position.” It further held that the alleged suppression stood cured during the adjudication of the insolvency petition and that the final decision had already taken the disputed payments into account.

The Bench also ruled that the application suffered from maintainability issues because the principal insolvency proceedings had already attained finality. It observed that once substantive proceedings are concluded, miscellaneous applications seeking to revive collateral disputes are ordinarily not maintainable unless they fall within limited exceptions such as correction of clerical errors or implementation of executable directions.

Rejecting the plea for prosecution, the Tribunal further observed, “Proceedings for perjury cannot be permitted to become an instrument for collateral attack or retaliatory litigation arising out of adversarial disputes already adjudicated upon.” According to the Bench, the present case did not fall within the exceptional category warranting exercise of the Tribunal’s extraordinary jurisdiction to initiate criminal proceedings for perjury.

The ruling reinforces the principle that while parties appearing before judicial forums must make truthful disclosures, every omission or incorrect statement will not automatically result in criminal prosecution. Courts and tribunals are expected to invoke perjury jurisdiction sparingly, particularly where the alleged suppression has no impact on the ultimate adjudication or has already been rectified during the proceedings. The decision also clarifies the limited scope of invoking Sections 227 and 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 215 and 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in insolvency litigation after the conclusion of the principal proceedings.

Case Reference: Tollman International Private Limited v. Capstech Network Private Limited, I.A. No. 206/ND/2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 2/ND/2024.