Published: · Source checked:
Different debt figures did not establish a prima facie perjury-referral case in Aditya Raheja v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction. On 3 September 2026, NCLT Mumbai treated the identified variations as reconciliation and legal disputes on the record, rather than proved deliberate material falsehood requiring a complaint to a Magistrate. The applications were dismissed; no criminal acquittal or universal licence for inaccurate evidence followed. Official order, paragraphs 17–26.
Order and procedural setting
| Item | Verified detail |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | NCLT Mumbai Bench-I |
| Members | Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey, Judicial; Prabhat Kumar, Technical |
| Applications | IA2730/2026 in CP(IB)290/MB/2023 and IA2724/2026 in CP(IB)291/MB/2023 |
| Corporate debtors | Neo Capricorn Plaza Private Limited and GSTAAD Hotels Private Limited |
| Applicant | Aditya Raheja |
| Respondent concerned | Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited |
| Order date | |
| Result | Both applications dismissed and disposed of |
The applicant sought a finding warranting prosecution-related steps, a written complaint to the competent court and interim preservation/status-quo relief. The common order dealt with the parallel applications together. The relief sought must be kept separate from what the Bench actually granted. Paragraphs 1–2 and 15–16.
The document list did not prove who made every statement
The challenged material included statements of account, a recall notice, default information and claim lists. At the outset, the Bench noted that two claim lists had been filed by the RP rather than by the respondent against whom the allegations were directed. That attribution problem mattered before deciding whether the respondent had committed a deliberate falsehood. Paragraphs 16–17.
For a practitioner, the first evidentiary task is therefore document-specific: identify the exact statement, its maker, where and when it was placed on record, and the particular assertion alleged to be false. A bundle containing inconsistent numbers does not automatically establish that one named party authored every inconsistency.
Reconciliation and legal disagreement were not treated as fabrication
The Tribunal reviewed the context in which the financial records had been used to determine default. It recorded that the parties had already debated interest treatment, recall of facilities and debt computation. It also distinguished a claim that a document was false or fabricated from a claim that information was incomplete, inaccurate or required reconciliation. Paragraphs 19–20.
That distinction did not create a rule that incomplete information is harmless. It explained why the applications, on this record, had not established the kind of deliberate material falsehood required for the prosecution-related step requested. A different application supported by distinct evidence of fabrication or intentional misrepresentation would raise a different question.
The source’s discussion of the default threshold should likewise remain confined to its reasoning in these proceedings. It should not be restated as a principle that every misstatement is immaterial whenever some default exceeds ₹1 crore. Materiality and the effect on administration of justice were part of the inquiry; the mere size of an admitted or alleged default does not answer every such issue.
The referral inquiry concerned administration of justice
The Bench discussed authorities requiring judicial assessment of whether proceedings were expedient in the interests of justice, with a reasonable evidentiary foundation for deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance. It contrasted that inquiry with taking prosecution steps merely because a statement contained an inaccuracy or because a litigant wanted a further remedy in a debt dispute. Paragraphs 21–25.
This article reports the test as applied in the NCLT order. It does not independently reanalyse every Supreme Court authority quoted there. Nor does refusal to make a complaint determine guilt or innocence in a completed criminal trial. The Bench found that the applicant had failed to make out even the prima facie referral case presented to it.
Preserve the actual CrPC and BNSS posture
Paragraph 2 records reliance on Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It would be inaccurate to rewrite this as an order that applied only one code, or to silently replace every CrPC reference in the source. Paragraphs 1–2 and 18–24.
For a fresh procedural question, the operative BNSS framework and its savings must be checked. Section 379 concerns the procedure in cases mentioned in Section 215; Section 531 preserves specified proceedings pending immediately before commencement. The commencement notification appointed 1 July 2024. An old company-petition number alone does not establish that a later prosecution-related application falls within a saved category. BNSS, sections 379 and 531; MHA commencement notification, government-hosted Gazette copy, PDF page 5.
This note preserves the source’s mixed pleading and does not decide the correct transition result for another file. It is a case analysis, rather than a filing guide that instructs every 2026 applicant to use repealed CrPC provisions.
A preparation framework drawn from this case
A useful application would distinguish the disputed debt computation from the alleged deliberate statement; attribute each document correctly; explain why the statement is false rather than merely unreconciled; and show its material effect on the judicial process. The applicable procedure and savings should be resolved separately. These are Veritect’s analytical lessons from the decision, not additional orders issued by the Tribunal.
Did every accounting discrepancy become perjury?
No. The Bench found this record insufficient for the referral requested and distinguished reconciliation/legal issues from a supported deliberate-falsehood case.
Was the respondent acquitted in a criminal trial?
No. The order dismissed the NCLT applications seeking prosecution-related steps. It was not a judgment after a Magistrate’s criminal trial.
Can a reader simply copy the CrPC label into a new application?
No. The order’s historical procedural references must be preserved accurately, while a new application requires its own BNSS/commencement/savings analysis.
Primary source and subsequent-treatment limit
Read the official 3 September 2026 common order, paragraphs 15–26. The underlying order, the BNSS provisions and commencement material were checked on 1 November 2026. Targeted official research did not establish subsequent treatment. No absence of an appeal, stay or other proceeding is asserted.