9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 823 - Tri - Companies LawJurisdiction - Seeking review and modification of the order - affiliation with the Divine Trust or not - mismanagement of affairs of the 1st Respondent Company or not - whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application for review? - 154 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 and Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2016 - HELD THAT - As per Rule 154 of NCLT Rules, 2016, the Tribunal can only rectify the clerical or arithmetical mistakes or error arising from accidental slip or omission. As per Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 the Tribunal can rectify any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it. In the present application the applicants sought to review the order passed by this Tribunal. In view of Rule 154 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 and Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, the Tribunal can exercise this power for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view which was made while deciding a matter. However, we could not find any error apparent on the face of record, warranting any correction in the order. Thus, it is the well laid down proposition of law that in the absence of any power of Review or Recall vested with the Adjudicating Authority , an order/judgment passed by it cannot be either reviewed or recalled. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the order passed by the Tribunal in Company Petition between the parties inter se has become conclusive , final and binding . Review application dismissed.
Issues:
Review and modification of an order dated 21.12.2021 in TCP/26/KOB/2019. Analysis: The Review Application was filed seeking to modify the order dated 21.12.2021 in TCP/26/KOB/2019. The case involved the dismissal of TCP/26/KOB/2019 by the Tribunal, where the Petitioner alleged certain observations contrary to the facts and documents on record. The 1st Respondent Company, a media company, was promoted by the Petitioner along with the 3rd Respondent (investor) and operated the cable TV Channel 'Goodness TV.' The Petitioner accused the 2nd and 4th Respondents of failing to comply with Sections 89 and 184 of the Companies Act 2013, attempting to oppress the Petitioner. The Petitioner requested the Tribunal to review and modify the order based on these contentions. The Respondents argued that the Review Application was not maintainable as the Company Petition was dismissed on merits. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, examined Rule 154 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, and Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. These provisions allow for rectification of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors apparent from the record, but not for substituting a view made during the decision-making process. The Tribunal found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting correction in the order. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the power of review is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record, not to reevaluate facts or law. The Tribunal cited cases where it was established that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used for a fresh hearing, re-argument, or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of specific provisions for review or recall, an order or judgment passed by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be reviewed or recalled. Based on these principles, the Tribunal dismissed the Review Application as the order passed in the Company Petition had become conclusive, final, and binding. The Tribunal held that the Review Application could not be entertained in this case, and accordingly, Review Application/01/KOB/2022 was dismissed without costs on the 11th day of March, 2022.
|
