2020 (1) TMI 1259 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Review/recall of the order - Section 60 (5) of IBC, 2016 and read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT - There is no specific power to review its own order. This Adjudicating Authority passed an Order dated 25th June, 2019. The applicant herein has not filed any appeal before Hon'ble NCLAT against this Order. However, the applicant had filed an interim application bearing IA (IB) No. 96019/2019 in Civil Appeal No. 3169 of 2019. Since, the applicant withdrew the main Civil Appeal, this interim application is also closed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble NCLAT has time and again clearly held and also under the provisions of IBC, 2016 that there is no provisions under the IBC, 2016 nor under the NCLT Rules to review its own order. Hence, the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29th July, 2019 cannot be interpreted as a direction given to this Adjudicating Authority to review the Order. Since, there is no provisions under the Act, Rules of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, nor any judgments precedents, this application for review/recall is not maintainable - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Review/recall of an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under IBC, 2016
- Interpretation of permissions granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
- Existence of provisions for review under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Analysis:

1. The application before the National Company Law Tribunal sought a review/recall of an order passed under Section 60 (5) of the IBC, 2016. The petitioner, State Bank of India, initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, which was challenged by the respondent based on RBI instructions without government concurrence, leading to a reversal of the initial order. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision granting permission to file a review, invoking the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the IBC and NCLT Rules.

2. The respondent's reply highlighted legal proceedings before the High Court and the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the permissions granted did not equate to a direction for review. The Supreme Court's order in a related Civil Appeal permitted withdrawal with liberty to approach the NCLT for review, which the Tribunal examined in light of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, concluding that it did not constitute a direction under this provision.

3. The Tribunal delved into the absence of specific provisions for review under the IBC, 2016 and NCLT Rules, emphasizing that the permissions granted by the Supreme Court were not tantamount to a directive for review. The applicant's failure to appeal the initial order before the NCLAT was noted, with the Tribunal underscoring the lack of legal basis for a review/recall application under the current legal framework.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application for review/recall, citing the absence of provisions for review under the IBC, 2016, and the lack of precedents or judgments supporting such a course of action. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to legal frameworks and established procedures within insolvency resolution processes, leading to the dismissal of the application.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the Tribunal's judgment concerning the review/recall application, the interpretation of permissions granted by the Supreme Court, and the absence of provisions for review under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal issues and conclusions involved in the case.