9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain] Member (Judicial) And [Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Bisht, Mr. Yati Ranjan and Mr. Divyam Garg, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Geetesh Meena, Advocate ORDER (Virtual Mode) This Appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 10th March, 2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court-IV) in I.A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction to recall its order in terms of the Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 because it had not decided any substantial issue on merits. He has conceded that had it been a case of deciding a substantial issue by the Adjudicating Authority then the matter would have been altogether different for the purpose of passing an order of review but since it was just a procedural aspect for which the Appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y issue decided by the Adjudicating Authority. Present is the case where with regard to the pleading i.e. accepting the Reply, inherent power has been exercised by the Adjudicating Authority under Rule 11 of the NCLT, Rules. We are of the view that substantial justice has been done by the Adjudicating Authority in taking the Reply on record." On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent has argued t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties and perused the record. There is a difference between recalling of an order and review on merits of the issue decided by the Adjudicating Authority. No doubt that the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to review its order after deciding a substantial issue but it has the jurisdiction to recall the order of the kind in dispute i.e. where the right to Reply was closed by an order on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
