9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 162 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyPower to Review/recall of the order - Appellant submits that Adjudicating Authority has power to recall the Order since Prayer d of I.A. No. 2407 of 2022 was not considered on merits - HELD THAT - The Application I.A. No. 2407 of 2022 was heard on merits and after hearing the parties, the Application was rejected. Mere use of the word Recall in the Application I.A. No. 4004 of 2022 shall not change the nature of the relief which was asked for by the Appellant. Applicant wanted to review of the Order to allow the Application which was rejected earlier by the Adjudicating Authority on 27th May, 2022. Present is not a case where earlier order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority which suffers from lack of jurisdiction or any fraud was committed by the Court. Learned Counsel for the Appellant lastly submits that the Adjudicating Authority has power to rectify and in this regard refers to Section 420 of the Companies Act. Present is not a case for rectification of any error. The provisions of Companies Act are not applicable. Thus, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the application - appeal dismissed.
Issues: Appeal against rejection of application to recall an order.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of an application to recall an order dated 27th May, 2022. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application stating that it sought a review of the order, which was impermissible. 2. The appellant contended that a prayer in the initial application was not considered on merits, leading to the filing of a subsequent application, I.A. No. 4004 of 2022, requesting the recall of the earlier order. The appellant argued that the nature of the relief sought was a recall, not a review. 3. The tribunal examined the submissions and cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd." to emphasize the power of the adjudicating authority to review judgments. However, the tribunal found that the circumstances of the present case did not align with the principles outlined in the referenced judgment. 4. Another judgment, "Budhia Swain and Ors. Vs. Gopinath Deb and Ors.," was cited to highlight the tribunal's inherent power to recall orders in cases of lack of jurisdiction, fraud, or court mistakes. The tribunal concluded that the present case did not fall under these criteria. 5. The appellant also argued that the adjudicating authority had the power to rectify errors under Section 420 of the Companies Act. However, the tribunal found that the situation did not warrant rectification and that the provisions of the Companies Act were not applicable. 6. Ultimately, the tribunal held that no error was committed by the adjudicating authority in rejecting the application to recall the order. The appeal was dismissed, stating that there was no merit in the appeal based on the arguments presented and the legal principles discussed.
|
