Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 120 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyJurisdiction - power of Tribunal to review its own order - mistake apparent on the face of record or not - It is the case of the Review Applicant that the accounts were reconciled with the sister concerns and therefore no amount was ‘due and payable’ and hence there is an ‘error apparent on the face of record’ and sought for remanding the matter to the Learned Adjudicating Authority for a de novo consideration - whether it is otherwise permissible in law for this Tribunal to “Review” its Judgement passed in Appeal? - HELD THAT:- This Appellate Tribunal while dealing with the scope of power conferred under Rule 11 in ‘Action Barter Private Limited V/s. SREI Equipment Finance Limited & Anr.’ [2020 (9) TMI 843 - NATIONAL COM PANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] and it was held that Rule cannot be invoked to revisit the findings returned as regards the assertion of facts and pleas raised in the appeal and it is not open to re-examine the findings on questions of fact, how-so-ever erroneous they may 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. 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 necessary implications - The error must be a ‘patent error’ which is ‘manifest’ and ‘self-evident’. The submissions of the Review Applicant in this case would amount to re-appraisal of evidence and findings of fact cannot be revisited within the limited scope of exercise of powers under Rule 11. It appears that the Appellant is trying to have a re-hearing which is not permissible - 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 Review Application, the Applicant seeks to re-argue the matter. This Review Application is dismissed as impermissible in Law and as no mistake apparent from the record is made out.
|