9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to note that the Applicant has not made any grounds for this Tribunal to interfere in the sale process carried out by the Liquidator. All the grounds raised by the Applicant are frivolous and not sustainable in the eye of law - when the entire sale process is complete and in the absence of any legal infirmities on the part of the Liquidator in conducting the e-auction process and also in view of the extension of timelines granted by this Tribunal in IA/335/2020 to the 2nd Respondent, the grounds raised by the Applicant are required need to be brushed aside. It is now well settled that this Tribunal and also the Appellate Tribunal has no powers to 'Review' or 'Recall' its own judgment and the appropriate remedy for the aggrieved person is only to file an Appeal. There is no violation committed on the part of the Liquidator and the Liquidator has acted as the Act and Regulations of IBC and IBBI - Application dismissed. - Sucharitha R., Member (J) And Anil Kumar B., Member (T) For the Appellant : R. Murari, Senior Advocate for G.T. Subramanian and Mahmood Aslam, Advocates. For the Respondents : S. Sathiyanarayanan, Advocate, P.H. Arvindh Pandian and P.S. Raman, Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s further submitted that the Applicant aggrieved by the said award approached the Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide O.P. No. 137 of 2016 and the same was dismissed and as against the same, the Applicant preferred an Appeal bearing O.S.A No. 202 of 2019. 5. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant further submitted that the Financial creditor herein viz. Shriram City union Finance Limited, filed an Application before this Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. It was submitted that the assets of the Corporate Debtor were subject to order of attachment by the Income Tax Department towards capital gain for a sum of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- and the Corporate Debtor has no other Financial creditors and the Respondent herein was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional in respect of the Corporate Debtor. 6. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the 1st Respondent/RP has failed to adhere to the timelines stipulated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the assets of the Corporate Debtor were valued only on 18.05.2019, whereas the 1st Respondent/RP was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possession of the property and the books and other document of the Corporate Debtor. Hence the RP has filed MA/300/2019 under Section 19 of the IBC, 2016 seeking cooperation of the erstwhile directors and provide the details, books and respective documents. It was submitted that the said MA/300/2019 came to be allowed by the order of this Tribunal dated 08.04.2019 and the RP was directed to take the assistance of the Commissioner of Police Trichy to take possession of the Property, Books and other documents of the Corporate Debtor. However, it was submitted that even after the order dated 08.04.2019, the erstwhile Directors/Applicant and the other Respondents in the said MA/300/2019 had failed to extend their co-operation. 10. The Learned Senior Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that in the 4th CoC meeting held on 21.06.2019, the CoC has proposed for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and accordingly passed a Resolution to that effect. Subsequent thereto, on the basis of the Application filed by the RP in MA/689/2019 this Tribunal vide its order dated 17.07.2019 has ordered for Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor and appointed the 1st Respondent herein as the Liquidator. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the attachment order on the property made by the Income Tax department, before this Tribunal and subsequently, this Tribunal vide order dated 10.02.2020 allowed the said application and as of now the property is free of encumbrances and is yet to be registered. 15. Further, it was submitted that the property of the Corporate Debtor was sold for Rs. 29.35 Crore which would be suffice to meet out the outstanding liabilities of the Corporate Debtor and the remaining amount would be distributed in accordance to the waterfall mechanism under IBC, 2016. It was submitted by the Leaned Senior Counsel for the Respondent that this present application is filed by the Applicant to stall the proceedings and stop on future payments to the Creditors. Further the Respondent averred in the application that the Applicant herein has solely instituted the application to take over the Corporate Debtors property free from any charge of the Income tax Authorities. Further, it is averred in the Counter filed that the Applicant has solely filed this application to delay the Liquidation process and allowing the application would totally defeat the process of IBC, 2016 in toto. 16. The Learned Senior Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also this Tribunal vide its order dated 05.05.2020 passed in IA/335/2020 extended the time period to deposit the remaining amount by the successful bidder/2nd Respondent, till the lockdown is lifted by the State/Central Government. 21. The Learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that the balance sale consideration was duly deposited on 28.08.2020 and in pursuance of the same a Sale Deed was executed in favour of the 2nd Respondent/successful bidder which is registered as Doc. No. 3551/2020 on the file of the Sub -Registrar, Trichy. Further, the Learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that this Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Arrowline Organic Products Pvt. Ltd. V. M/s. Rockwell Industries Limited, has held that the orders passed by this Tribunal cannot be review or recalled. 22. Heard the submissions made by the Learned Senior Counsel for both the parties. From the facts narrated above, it could be seen that the Liquidator has carried out his duties as per the provisions and the timelines prescribed under IBC, 2016 and that the Applicant, who is a promoter/suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor is being dissatisfied with the properties being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal would not rehear the parties on 'Facts' and 'Law. No wonder, a re-appraisal of evidence on record for unearthing an error will amount to an exercise of 'Appellate Jurisdiction which is not permitted in Law. A Review is not to be sought for a 'Fresh Hearing' or 'Arguments' or 'Correction of an erroneous view' taken earlier. To put it precisely, the contentions raised and determined in main proceedings are not to be reopened/re-agitated under the garb of Review Petition as per decision Sharada Bai V. Padamlal, 2003 All India High Court Cases 1756 (1757) (Andhra Pradesh). Also for correcting an erroneous decision, Review will not lie, as opined by this Tribunal . Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1273 had observed and held that 'power of Review' is not an 'inherent power'. Power to Recall 27. It is the well laid down proposition of law that 'in the absence of any power of 'Review' or 'Recall' vested with the 'Adjudicating Authority' - 'Appellate Authority', an order/judgment passed by it cannot be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
