2023 (8) TMI 1429 - Tri - Companies Law

Restoration of name of applicant company which was struck off by the respondent - apparent mistake appeared in the dismissal order or not - HELD THAT - The High court granted liberty to the applicant to file amendment application. The scope of amendment is to rectify the mistake if it is apparent on record. The applicant has not pointed out any apparent mistake appeared in the dismissal order of this Tribunal dated 21.08.2020 instead he prayed to receive additional documents on record and grant the relief prayed in dismissal C.P.No.70/CTB/2020. The prayer of the applicant is beyond the scope of amendment. On the applicant side not brought to notice of this Tribunal any apparent mistake appeared in the dismissal order dated 21.08.2020. The High court granted permission to the applicant to file amendment petition. The applicant not filed an application for an amendment instead he filed the application to receive the additional documents, this prayer is beyond the scope of the permission granted by High court. The applicant cannot on its own expand the permission granted by High Court and labelled that this application is filed in pursuance of High Court order dated 14.10.2022. In the High Court order there is no whisper about production of additional documents and the revival of the company. In strict sense this application is not in consonance with the order of High court. This application is DISMISSED.

Summary

Issues involved: Application for receiving additional documents and revival of a company dismissed by the tribunal.

Summary:
1. The applicant filed an interlocutory application based on the High Court's order to receive additional documents and consider the revival of the company.

2. The applicant previously filed a petition to restore the company, which was dismissed by the tribunal. The applicant did not appeal to the NCLAT but challenged the dismissal in a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court directed the applicant to approach the tribunal for amending the order within two years, but the applicant failed to do so.

3. The High Court noted that the applicant did not prefer a regular appeal due to feeling deprived of an opportunity to present evidence. The High Court did not set aside the tribunal's order but allowed the applicant to file an amendment application within two years, which the applicant failed to do. Subsequently, the applicant filed a fresh petition under a different section, which was later withdrawn.

4. The applicant filed a new application seeking to receive additional documents, despite the High Court's permission for an amendment to rectify apparent mistakes in the dismissal order. The tribunal found no apparent mistake and deemed the applicant's prayer for additional documents beyond the scope of the amendment. The application was deemed devoid of merit and dismissed.

5. The application was dismissed, and the registry was directed to inform all parties and their counsel.

6. E-mail copies of the order were to be sent to the parties, and a physical copy could be issued upon request and compliance with formalities.