2019 (2) TMI 1826 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Jurisdiction - power of Tribunal to recall its own order - Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble NCLAT has repeatedly held that this Tribunal does not have the power to review its own order. In the circumstances, this Tribunal is constrained to dismiss the above application as it is not maintainable before this Tribunal under the provisions of IBC, 2016. Let the CIRP as initiated against the Corporate Debtor be duly proceeded with. The period spent before this Tribunal from 10.01.2019 being the date on which stay was granted till today shall stand excluded - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Review of Tribunal's order, maintainability of the application seeking a stay of a final order, recourse for the Corporate Debtor, exclusion of period spent during the stay.

Analysis:
The Tribunal's judgment pertains to an application filed by the Corporate Debtor seeking a stay of a final order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that a detailed order had been previously passed after considering the main petition filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal highlighted that the order in question was not solely due to the non-appearance of the Corporate Debtor but was based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented. It was emphasized that the Tribunal, in the current scenario, could not review or revisit its own order. The judgment pointed out that the appropriate recourse for the Corporate Debtor, if aggrieved by the order, was to file an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal as per the provisions of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal cited previous decisions by the Hon'ble NCLAT, emphasizing that the Tribunal lacked the authority to review its own orders. Consequently, the application seeking a stay of the final order was deemed not maintainable under the IBC, 2016. The judgment directed that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated against the Corporate Debtor should continue. Additionally, the period from the date the stay was granted until the current date was to be excluded from the proceedings. Ultimately, the application was dismissed in line with the aforementioned directions.