9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 1140 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyReview petition - impugned order passed by this Appellate Tribunal, without hearing him, as an Aggrieved and Necessary Party - Issuance of directions for initiating Perjury Proceedings, against the Respondent Nos. 1 2, to protect Authority and Majesty of this Tribunal, and thus restore the Purity of Administration of Justice - Whether the presence of a Particular Party, is necessary in order to enable the Court(s), effectively and completely, to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions, which are involved in the Petition?. Power to Recall - HELD THAT - The Power to Recall a Judgment, will not be exercised when the ground for Re-opening the Proceedings or Vacating the Judgment was available to be pleaded in the original action, but was not done or a proper remedy, in some other proceedings, such as, by way of Appeal, was available, but was not availed. Also that, the right to seek Vacation of a Judgment, may be lost by, either Waiver or Estoppel or Acquiescence. Power of Review - HELD THAT - The Power of Review is not an Inherent Power, but it is a creation of Statute. A Review of Judgment, cannot be granted in the garb of Clarification, as per decision of Hon ble Supreme Court, reported in 2004 (5) TMI 606 - SUPREME COURT . A Review Court, cannot sit in Appeal, over its own Order and rehearing of matter is impermissible in Law - A Debatable and Legal issues are not covered by the expression Sufficient Reason and as such, no Review, would lie. Also that, where, all the Pleas, urged in Review Petition, were reiteration of grounds, urged during the Hearing of Appeals, Review Petitions, were held not maintainable. Since Power of Review, is a Right, created by a Statute, it cannot be exercised by the Tribunal, in the absence of Statute, providing for it. As a matter of fact, the term Recall, should not be expanded to be read as Synonym for Review. The present Review Petitioner (Erstwhile Liquidator of M/s. The Jeypore Sugar Company Limited / Corporate Debtor), has no Vested Right, to file the Review Application and further, he cannot pray for Recall of the Impugned Order, passed by this Tribunal. More importantly, the Review Petitioner (in person), cannot indulge in a Fishing Expedition, in filing the Review Application No. 3 / 2024, without any foundation / justification or any legal basis. Keeping in mind of the well laid down Proposition of Law that Power of Recall, is not the Power of the Tribunal, to Re-hear the case, to find out any apparent error, in an Order or Judgment, as the case may be, this Tribunal, comes to an irresistible and cocksure conclusion, that the instant Review Application, filed by the Review Petitioner, in his personal capacity is not perse Maintainable, especially, in the teeth of he being neither a Necessary or Proper Party, to the case. Review application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Impugned Order dated 05.01.2024 was passed without hearing the Petitioner. 2. Whether the Petitioner is a "Necessary Party" and if the Order is "Void Ab Initio". 3. Allegations of fraud, cheating, and obstruction of liquidation process by the New Liquidator. 4. Compliance with previous Tribunal orders and the necessity of including Rayagada Land in the Asset Memorandum. 5. Continuous nature of the Liquidation Process and the role of the Erstwhile Liquidator. 6. The Petitioner's right to defend against allegations made in IA No. 815 / 2020. 7. The Petitioner's claim regarding actual compensation and the Tribunal's reliance on IDBI Bank's pleadings. 8. The Petitioner's right to be heard as an Affected Party. 9. The Petitioner's contention about the New Liquidator's lack of jurisdiction and experience. 10. The Petitioner's stance on the corporate debtor's right to claim compensation for Ceiling Surplus Land. 11. The Petitioner's argument about the procedural errors in the Tribunal's judgment. Summary: Issue 1: Whether the Impugned Order dated 05.01.2024 was passed without hearing the Petitioner. The Petitioner contended that the Impugned Order dated 05.01.2024 was passed by the Tribunal without hearing him, making the Order "Void Ab Initio" and "Non-Est". Issue 2: Whether the Petitioner is a "Necessary Party" and if the Order is "Void Ab Initio". The Petitioner argued that he was a "Necessary Party" whose presence was essential for an effective order. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments to establish the necessity of a party's presence for adjudication. Issue 3: Allegations of fraud, cheating, and obstruction of liquidation process by the New Liquidator. The Petitioner alleged that the New Liquidator obtained the Order by suppressing issues of fraud, cheating, and obstruction of the liquidation process, causing significant loss to IDBI Bank and attracting Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Issue 4: Compliance with previous Tribunal orders and the necessity of including Rayagada Land in the Asset Memorandum. The Petitioner claimed that the New Liquidator disregarded the Tribunal's previous order to include Rayagada Land in the Asset Memorandum before proceeding with the Section 230 Scheme. Issue 5: Continuous nature of the Liquidation Process and the role of the Erstwhile Liquidator. The Petitioner emphasized that the Liquidation Process is continuous and that the acts performed by the Erstwhile Liquidator should be respected as he held quasi-judicial powers. Issue 6: The Petitioner's right to defend against allegations made in IA No. 815 / 2020. The Petitioner asserted that he needed to defend his integrity, character, and efficiency against severe allegations made in IA No. 815 / 2020. Issue 7: The Petitioner's claim regarding actual compensation and the Tribunal's reliance on IDBI Bank's pleadings. The Petitioner argued that the actual compensation receivable was Rs.12.33 Lakhs, not Rs.500 Crores as presumed by the Tribunal based on IDBI Bank's false pleadings. Issue 8: The Petitioner's right to be heard as an Affected Party. The Petitioner contended that he was not given an opportunity to defend his case, despite being an Affected Party with mala fides attributed to him. Issue 9: The Petitioner's contention about the New Liquidator's lack of jurisdiction and experience. The Petitioner argued that the New Liquidator had no jurisdiction to function and lacked experience, being selected from the IBBI list of highly experienced professionals. Issue 10: The Petitioner's stance on the corporate debtor's right to claim compensation for Ceiling Surplus Land. The Petitioner pointed out that the Corporate Debtor has a right to claim compensation for Ceiling Surplus Land at Rayagada Property, as per the Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. Issue 11: The Petitioner's argument about the procedural errors in the Tribunal's judgment. The Petitioner cited various judgments to argue that procedural errors, such as not hearing a necessary party or ignoring fraud, justified recalling the Order. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Petitioner, being no longer the Liquidator, had no vested right to seek a review or recall of the Order. The New Liquidator, empowered by law, had the authority to withdraw the appeal, and the Petitioner's application was deemed not maintainable. The Review Application No. 3 / 2024 was dismissed without costs.
|
