Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (1) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1279 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCHJurisdiction - power of Tribunal to recall its own order - Liquidation Order - in view of the dismissal of appeal and since the period of CIRP already exceeds 330 days, the Ld.RP submits that since CoC has not approved any resolution plans an order of liquidation is to be passed under section 33(1) (a) of the Code - whether this Tribunal has got power to recall or modify or set aside its own order under Section 60(5) of the Code or as per Rule 11 of NCLT Rules as alleged? HELD THAT:- As per Rule 155 of NCLT Rules, it is clear that there is no inherent power to review, as is under Order 47 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but the Tribunal has power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 420 of the Act, 2013 to rectify any mistake apparent from the record and to amend the order accordingly - The inherent power, as provided under Rule 11, is for making such order for meeting the ends of justice or for preventing abuse of justice, or if necessary for meeting the end of justice or abuse of process of Tribunal. But such power can be exercised during hearing of an application/appeal and not after disposal or for review of its own order. By filing appeal against the interim order passed by this Bench, the very same contention regarding the maintainability of the order of admission has been challenged by the applicant herein and the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal discussed at length as to the contention on side of the applicant that the applicant does not fall under the definition of corporate person, under the purview of Section 3(7) of the Code and it came to the conclusion that the applicant/appellant has failed to show any document that it is actually performing the business of financial service provider as defined under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. On the other hand, the respondent has shown that it is not actually performing the business of Financial service provider and thereby does not come within the meaning of financial service provider. The Corporate Debtor as well as one of the Directors of the suspended Board of Corporate Debtor challenged the order of admission. The applicant also raised the very same issue in an appeal CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 588 & 589 of 2018 filed before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal. In the aforesaid legal position, it appears to us that, the appellant has not succeeded in proving that he had any statutory right of review - application dismissed.
|