TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27th May, 2022. Present is not a case where earlier order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority which suffers from lack of jurisdiction or any fraud was committed by the Court. Learned Counsel for the Appellant lastly submits that the Adjudicating Authority has power to rectify and in this regard refers to Section 420 of the Companies Act. Present is not a case for rectification of any error. The provisions of Companies Act are not applicable. Thus, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the application - appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1297 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 2-11-2022 - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson And [ Mr. Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the CoC to reconsider the Resolution Plan. In terms of submissions, we again peruse the averments made in the application. Since the applicant himself admits this fact that he is an allottee under the project and the Resolution Plan has been approved by the Authorized Representative of the allottee, therefore, in terms of the settled principal of law, we are of the considered view that an individual allottee can not raise objection regarding maintainability of the approval of the Resolution Plan, once it has been approved by the CoC which, inter alia, includes Authorized Representative of the allottees. Under such circumstance, we find no merit in the Appliction. Accordingly, the prayer is hereby rejected and the present IA S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the matter of Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 550]. The Judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the above case, was a case where there was no occasion to consider the provisions of IBC and power of the Adjudicating Authority to review the Judgement. Hon ble Supreme Court in the above case has held that the Court and the Statutory Tribunal are conferred with a power to record evidence and receive evidence and pass appropriate order. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to Paragraph 22 and 23 of the Judgement which are as follows: 22. The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 C.P.C., to recall its judgement or order it is obtained by Fraud on Court. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 85; Bankey Behari Lal and Anr. V. Abdul Rahman and Ors. ILR (1932) 7 Luc 350 : AIR 1932 Oudh 63: Lekshmi Amma Chacki Amma vs. Mammen Manxmen 1955 Ker L T 459. The Court has also the inhernet power to set aside a sale brought about by fraud practised upon the Court Ishwar Mahton and Anr. Vs. Sitaram Kumar and ORs. MANU/BH/0155/1954 AIR (1954) Pat 450: or to set aside the Order recording compromise obtained by fraud. (Bindeshwari Pd. Chaudhary V. Debendra Pd. Singh and Ors. MANU/BH/0200/1958: AIR1958Pat618; Smt. Tara Bai Vs. V.S. Krishnaswamy Rao MANU/KA/0180/1985: AIR (1985) Kar 270. The above observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court are not attracted in the facts of the present case. 9. Another Judgement relied on by the Learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Chapter Judgment- Opening and Vacating (paras.265 to 284 at pages 487-510) the law on the subject has been stated. The grounds on which the courts may open or vacate their judgments are generally matters which render the judgment void or which are specified in statutes authorising such actions. Invalidity of the judgment of such nature as to render it void is a valid ground for vacating it at least if the invalidity is apparent on the face of the record. Fraud or collusion in obtaining a judgment is a sufficient ground for opening or vacating it. A judgment secured in violation of an agreement not to enter judgment may be vacated on that ground. However, in general, a judgment will not be opened or vacated on grounds which could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|