9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed preposition of law unless review power is conferred upon any authority, no forum is competent enough to review final orders. Though it is an admission order in respect to initiation of CIRP, it is a final order. For this order being final, this Adjudicating Authority will not have any jurisdiction to re-open the order under the cover of Section 60(5) of the Code. This is a provision conferred upon jurisdiction upon the Adjudicating Authority to examine the applications that are filed either by the Corporate Debtor or corporate person or any other person in respect to the issues that have come up during the CIRP or during liquidation but not to assail the admission order already passed - As to review jurisdiction is concerned, it is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the NCLAT and the appeals are dismissed since the appellant is a shareholder of the corporate debtor, now the promoter directors, by curing the procedural defect noticed by the Honorable Supreme Court regarding shareholder filing the Appeal, have come before this Adjudicating Authority u/s 60 (5) of the Code praying this Bench to examine the limitation point because the default committed by the Corporate Debtor in repaying the loan was declared by R1 three years before filing this company petition, hence forth this company petition shall be dismissed for it is barred by limitation and revoke the CIRP process in progress. 2. On perusal of this application, it appears that the Financial Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the above appeals with the order dated 10.05.2019 as follows: Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The appeals are dismissed since the appellant is a shareholder of the corporate debtor. However, the point of limitation is kept open in case further proceedings are taken. Pending applications stand disposed of. 4. Taking support from the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, now the promoter directors have filed this MA u/s 60(5) of the Code stating that this Adjudicating Authority being conferred with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmission is concerned. Besides this, when specific remedy is available to take all these points before the Appellate Authority and no review power being conferred upon this Adjudicating Authority, it is not open to this Bench to review its own order under the cover of Section 60(5) of the Code. 9. On careful reading of Section 60(5) of the Code, it is no doubt true that jurisdiction has been conferred upon this Adjudicating Authority to entertain or dispose of an application against the corporate debtor or by the corporate debtor, but it does not mean that this jurisdiction conferment is to re-examine the admission order already passed by this Bench. 10. I doubt that inherent power is vested with this Authority u/s 60 (5) of the Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 60 (5) of the Code cannot be read as the provision providing review jurisdiction to this Bench. Therefore, we are of the view that this application is bereft of any jurisdiction. 14. In the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is evident that the Appeal was straight away dismissed without considering that point, without granting any relief. If at all the shareholder is not supposed to file an Appeal, the Promoter-Directors ought to have filed Appeal over the order of ADMISSION, but not to file review application before this Bench in a bid to nullify the orders of Honourable NCLAT and Honourable Supreme Court. 15. Lastly it must be said that it goes without saying that as to point of limitation is concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
