Amendment of Pleadings Under Rule 155 of NCLT Rules, 2016: Key Lessons from Biju Scaria vs Media Team Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Overview of the Case

The NCLT Kochi Bench recently delivered a significant ruling in Biju Scaria Vs Media Team Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd., addressing a critical procedural question: can an assessee/petitioner introduce fresh events and new causes of action into an existing Company Petition through an amendment application? The Tribunal's answer was an emphatic no — and the reasoning behind this decision carries important implications for practitioners appearing before the NCLT.

This ruling clarifies the scope and limitations of Rule 155 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, distinguishing it sharply from the broader amendment framework available under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Background and Material Facts

The matter arose from Company Petition No. CP(C/Act)/31/KOB/2024, in which the applicants filed an interlocutory application under Rule 11 read with Rules 17(1)(b) and 32 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. The relief sought through this interlocutory application included:

• Permission to amend the original Company Petition to incorporate additional pleadings concerning subsequent events, a Schedule of Events, and corresponding prayers
• Correction of annexure numbering in the rejoinder (renumbering Annexures 13–36 as Annexures 8–31)
• Correction of annexure references in IA No. 29 of 2025 (renumbering them as Annexures A to E)

The applicants anchored their case on the contention that the events they wished to introduce constituted continuing acts of oppression and mismanagement within the meaning of Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, and that incorporating them was indispensable for the effective and complete adjudication of the dispute.

Chronology of Proceedings

The Tribunal took careful note of the following timeline before arriving at its decision:

This chronology was significant because it demonstrated that the amendment application was filed well after the completion of pleadings — a factor that directly engaged the thirty-day window prescribed under Rule 155.

What the Applicants Alleged

The applicants contended that throughout the pendency of the Company Petition, the respondents had engaged in a systematic pattern of conduct designed to exclude them from the management and affairs of the respondent company. The specific allegations proposed to be incorporated through the amendment included:

• Exclusion from management and reallocation of managerial duties
• Restriction of access to ZOHO applications, financial records, and email systems
• Redesignation of Applicant No. 1 from Whole-Time Director to Non-Executive Director
• Removal of Applicant No. 2 from the Board of Directors
• Continued participation of Respondent No. 2 in company affairs despite resignation, including access to official email systems and creation of a new email account under a migrated domain
• Alleged diversion of business opportunities and confidential information to a competing entity, Neovex Tech Solutions Private Limited
• Migration of the company's email domain and disabling of access to key digital platforms
• Conducting a Board Meeting dated 02.05.2025 in a manner that excluded the applicants from participation via video conferencing

The applicants characterised all these events collectively as a continuing cause of action rather than independent fresh causes, thereby seeking to bring them within the ambit of the existing petition through amendment.

Respondents' Objections

The respondents vigorously opposed the amendment application on multiple grounds: