9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Authority, which had admitted the Application under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC in short) preferred by Respondent No. 2/Operational Creditor. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Review Applicant submitted that this Tribunal did not consider that the genuineness of the signature of one Mr. Vikas Gandhi, who had left employment of the Company, could only be proved by leading evidence in a Civil Court; that the reconciled accounts signed by the Operational Creditor for the period 04.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 (pages 361 to 364 of the original Appeal) and for the period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 (pages 365 to 380) were not considered; that the confirmatory letters exchanged between the Applicant and the sister concerns of both the Applicant and the Respondent No. 2/ Operational Creditor for the period 21.10.2017 to 30.04.2018 (pages 429 to 460 and 464 to 466) and the journal entries mentioned in the replies dated 28.08.2018 and 05.11.2018 were also not considered by this Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant drew our attention to the grounds raised before this Tribunal with respect to his submissions that there was a 'Pre-Existing Dispute'; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Emphasis Supplied) 5. This Tribunal has no inherent power to review its own Order. We have heard this Review Applicant at length considering the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Question is, whether it is otherwise permissible in law for this Tribunal to "Review" its Judgement passed in Appeal. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant filed this Application under Section 22 of the RDBA and Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules and submitted that this Tribunal is bound by the provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This Tribunal is not constituted by RDBA. It is established under Companies Act 2013, and conferred with jurisdiction as per provisions of IBC. It is a well settled proposition that a Court or Tribunal has no Jurisdiction to review its Orders unless authorized by a statute as per the decision 'Fernandes' V/s. 'Ranga Nayakulu' AIR 1953 Mad. 236. 7. On the question of power to 'Review' under Order 47 Rule 1, C.P.C. 1908, in its earlier decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Satyanarayan Laxmi Narayan Hegde & Ors.' v. 'Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale', MANU/SC/0169/1959 : 1959 (SLT Soft) 10 : (1960) 1 SCR 890, made certain observations, which was followed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cally therefor and subject to the conditions or limitations provided therein. The powers under Section 152 of the Code are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe the Court concerned under the guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered, in its entirety or any portion or part of it. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the Court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 as if it is looking into it for the first time, for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party if at all is to file appeal or revision before the higher Forum or review application before the very Forum, subject to the limitations in respect of such review. It implies that the section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the Courts below have been liberally construing and applying the provisions of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be. 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." 13. It is significant to mention that in the NCLAT Rules, 2016 there is no express provision for 'Review' and the contention of the Review Applicant that Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 is applicable and therefore this Application is maintainable, is untenable as the power vested in this Tribunal under Rule 11 can only be exercised to enhance cause of justice or prevent abuse of process. To reiterate, Power of Review has to be granted by statute and the 'power of Review' is not an inherent power and therefore cannot be exercised unless conferred specifically or by necessar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tters, journal entries relied upon by the Counsel for the Appellant show several discrepancies. One such transaction received from M/s Oyster Steel and Iron Pvt. Ltd. alleged to have been signed by one Mr. Vikas Gandhi is dated 30.04.2018, whereas the material on record evidences that the said Mr. Gandhi had already resigned on 22.01.2018 and was paid all his emoluments and therefore the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the said sister concern M/s. Oyster Steel and Iron Pvt. Ltd. had confirmed the accounting entries in the ledger, inspires no confidence. This is apart from the fact that signatures purporting to be of Mr. Gandhi being pointed out by Appellant do not match even on bare reading of his service record. We find force in the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Operational Creditor that the Articles of Association of the Company mandate the presence and signature of the Director wherever the stamp of the Company is used and he placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Kotla Venkataswamy V/s Chinta Ramamurthy, AIR MAD 579. Additionally, the material on record shows that the ledger which the Appellant is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r plea that all accounts have been reconciled and signed by both the Parties except for filing these confirmatory letters which portray so many discrepancies and therefore, inspire no confidence. Both the defences raised by the Appellant's Counsel are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist as a debt cannot be disputed and discharged at the same time. We are of the considered view that the Appellant did not raise any plausible contention requiring further investigation and the argument raised is not substantiated by any evidence. Hence, we are of the opinion that the 'dispute' does not truly exist in fact and is spurious and the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case." Considering the above with the Application now filed and considering the submissions made, it appears to us that the Appellant is trying to have a re-hearing which is not permissible. 18. We observe that there is no 'mistake apparent from the record' and the Applicant cannot be permitted to seek re-hearing of the Appeal in regard to any finding which would amount to sitting in an Appeal in disguise. In the garb of this Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
