9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tya Dewan and Mr. Siddharth Chechani, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Sumant Batra, Mr. Shashwat Anand and Ms. Niharika Sharma, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Debashish Nanda, IRP. JUDGMENT BANSI LAL BHAT, J. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1504 of 2019 titled 'Anubhav Anilkumar Agarwal Vs. Bank of India & Anr.' came to be dismissed in terms of judgment rendered by this Appellate Tribunal on 7th February, 2020 with observations that the application filed under Section 7 of I&B Code by the Financial Creditor - Bank of India seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against 'RNA Corporation Ltd.' (Corporate Debtor), who was the Guarantor was not barred by limitation and that the dictum of law laid down in 'Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agrawal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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/IBC/NCLT/MB/MAH/2018. There is nothing on the record to suggest that with regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Constructions Pvt. Ltd.' which, it is claimed, established that a Deed of Guarantee had been executed by 'M/s Chamber Constructions Pvt. Ltd.' as Guarantor for the Corporate Debtor. It is further submitted that in terms of the dictum of this Appellate Tribunal in 'Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agarwal' (supra), which continues to be a binding precedent, claim of Respondent No. 1 in respect of the debt stood extinguished in view of same being admitted in CIRP of 'M/s Chamber Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and the Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tribunal) Mumbai Bench could not have admitted its claim filed under Section 7 of the I&B Code in respect of the same debt. It is further submitted that no one can be forced to suffer because of mistake of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arwal' (supra) cannot be applied on an assumption as the issue would require appreciation of material on record and elaborate discussion and arguments by the parties before taking any view in the matter and an error which requires elaborate discussion of evidence cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. It is submitted that reappreciation of evidence for finding out an error would amount to an exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction which is impermissible in law. 5. Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, relevant for the purposes of disposal of instant application, is reproduced as under:- "11. Inherent powers.-Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Appellate Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. Relevant portion of Section 420 reads as under: "420 (2) The Tribunal may, at any time within two years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it, and shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties: Provided that no such amendment shall be made in respect of any order against which an appeal has been preferred under this Act." A mere glance at Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 would reveal that the powers thereunder are exercisable by the 'Tribunal' defined unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
