9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... travel beyond record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. The inherent power cannot be exercised in a manner that it would amount to sitting in appeal over the findings recorded on appreciation of evidence. Reappraisal of evidence for examining correctness or otherwise of the finding would amount to sitting in appeal in disguise. Applicant cannot be permitted to seek rehearing of the appeal or reconsideration of the judgment in regard to a finding, even when the same is erroneous. It would be appropriate to refer to provisions of Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 dealing with orders of the Tribunal as this Appellate Tribunal is a creation of the statute. In the instant case, Applicant is primarily aggrieved of the finding recorded by this Appellate Tribunal in para 14 of the judgment that there was nothing on record to suggest that with regard to the very same debt M/s Chamber Constructions Pvt. Ltd. had issued any Guarantee. Assuming that such finding is erroneous and there is material in the form of Deed of Guarantee, admission of Respondent No. 1 and other material on record to justify a finding contrary to the one recorded by this Appellate Tribunal in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that this Tribunal ought not to have upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority admitting the application under Section 7 which was with respect to the same claim and the same default of the Corporate Debtor since the same has the effect of simultaneously claiming the same amount twice over. It is further submitted that the case was fit for application of ratio of this Appellate Tribunal in the judgment in case of Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agarwal Vs Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 346 of 2018 , where it was held that once a claim is admitted for a set of claim against one Corporate Debtor in an application under Section 7, a second application by the same financial Creditor against another Corporate Debtor, be it a Guarantor or Principal Borrower, would not be maintainable. It is submitted that the error that has crept in Para 14 of the Judgment is an error apparent on the face of record. Para 14 is reproduced hereinbelow:- 14. The other plea taken by the Appellant is that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process has been initiated against one of the Guarantor for same set of claim, i.e., M/s Chamber Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in C.P. No.3962 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record is required to be corrected. It is further submitted that Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 vest inherent powers in this Appellate Tribunal to rectify such mistakes. It is lastly submitted that the error pointed out being manifest and self-evident is required to be corrected and this Appellate Tribunal would not be required to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. 3. Per contra it is submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 that this Appellate Tribunal has not been specifically conferred with the power to review its decisions beyond the inherent powers to correct arithmetical/ typographical errors. It is further submitted that this Appellate Tribunal does not enjoy power of review under Rule 11. It is submitted that the power of review is not an inherent power and in absence of a power conferred either specifically or by necessary implication, power of review cannot be exercised. 4. Learned counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that it is a settled position of law that this Appellate Tribunal does not have the power of review. It is submitted that inherent powers cannot be invoke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The mistake/error must be apparent on the face of the record and must have occurred due to oversight, inadvertence or human error. Of course it would be open to correct the conclusion if the same is not compatible with the finding recorded on the issues raised. We accordingly decline to entertain any plea in regard to the merits of the matter involved at the bottom of the appeal and confine ourselves to the interpretation of the findings recorded and the conclusions derived therefrom as regards fate of the application under Section 7 of I B Code filed by the Financial Creditor and the disposal of appeal. Dealing with the scope of review in Lily Thomas and Ors. Vs. Union of India Ors. reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224, the Hon ble Apex Court summed up its conclusions as under:- 56. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. 6. Admittedly, power of review has not been expressly conferred on this Appellate Tribunal and the power vested in this Appellate Tribunal under Rule 11 can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciation of evidence, reappraisal of material on record to arrive at a different finding changing the decision rendered on merit would be impermissible. Elaborating it to avoid confusion, it can be stated without any fear of contradiction that misreading of evidence / material or drawing of a wrong conclusion from it which involves application of mind, would not justify invoking of inherent powers to substitute that findings and alter the judgment. 7. In the instant case, Applicant is primarily aggrieved of the finding recorded by this Appellate Tribunal in para 14 of the judgment that there was nothing on record to suggest that with regard to the very same debt M/s Chamber Constructions Pvt. Ltd. had issued any Guarantee. Assuming that such finding is erroneous and there is material in the form of Deed of Guarantee, admission of Respondent No. 1 and other material on record to justify a finding contrary to the one recorded by this Appellate Tribunal in para 14 of the judgment, it would be impermissible for this Appellate Tribunal to substitute the finding within the scope of powers exercisable under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016. We are of the considered opinion that acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
