TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the later case namely, substantial review when it is sought for from this Tribunal it could not exercise its inherent powers whereas in the case of the former, namely, a procedural review it is within the scope and ambit of powers of this Tribunal being an adjudicating authority. A duty is cast upon the company, namely the CD under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 to communicate any change in the registered office address from one place to other in the requisite form to the concerned ROC and if the company has not chosen to communicate with the concerned ROC, in this case ROC, Jaipur, neither the Financial Creditor nor this Tribunal can be blamed, for its own inaction and it has to deal with the consequences arising out of it. This cannot be considered as a procedural lapse on the part of the Tribunal nor on the part of the Financial Creditor which can lead to a procedural review, as sought to have been exercised by NCLT Bench Calcutta in the decision cited on behalf of the applicant company under the facts and circumstances stated therein. There are no procedural lapses on the part of this Tribunal exercising its powers in passing the order dated 08.03.2019 - applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce address, since the Corporate Debtor was under a notice of eviction from the landlord, the CD was not in occupation of the said premises reflected as the registered office address by the Financial Creditor in the main CP. Further, it was also submitted that the Corporate Debtor presently is having its registered office address at Shri Laxmi complex, opp. Janana Hospital, Johtwara Road, Jaipur instead of the earlier premises, namely, 51-B Lalpura Colony, Banasthali Marg, Jaipur- 302001. The eviction of the Corporate Debtor it is submitted took place in the first week of October, 2018. 4. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant/CD submits it is quite evident that the applicant did not receive any notice from this Tribunal and therefore was not in a position to oppose the application as filed by the non-applicant/ FC on merits and that an opportunity should be given to the applicant to contest the same on merits. Learned counsel for the applicant also relies on an order passed by NCLT, Kolkotta Bench in CA (IB) 987/KB/2018 in CP (IB) No. 202/KB/2018 in order to buttress his submission that despite an order of admission being passed under the provisions of IBC, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 9 of IBC, the power of review cannot be exercised. Further, it is also pointed out in so far as recall of the order is concerned the same being nothing but a procedural review can be availed only based on a procedural defect being pointed out in passing the order by the adjudicating authority or where the creditor has played a fraud on the Tribunal in obtaining the order of admission. 8. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/FC in this connection points out that in the entire application no such procedural irregularity has been pointed out nor the applicant/CD has alleged a fraud being played upon by the Financial Creditor herein in obtaining the order of admission dated 08.03.2019 and in the circumstances the power of review or recall cannot be exercised and is beyond the scope of the NCLT being the adjudicating authority. It is also further pointed out that since the initiation of CIRP, the IRP has assumed charge over the affairs of the Corporate Debtor and has also filed two status reports vide Diary No. 633/2019 and Diary No. 694/2019 respectively in regard about the progress of CIRP. 9. Further, the status reports it is also pointed out discloses that the Committ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016,despite the existence of Section 424 (2) of Companies Act, 2013, the Hon'ble NCLAT has held in the matter of AmodAmladi Vs. Sayali Rani and others in company Appeal (AT)(lnsolvency) No. 295 of 2017 that the adjudicating authority has no power to review or recall an order passed by it admitting a petition under the provision of IBC, 2016.However, learned counsel for the applicant in this connection as evident from the submission made by him, is trying to project a view that what is sought before this Tribunal is only a procedural review in view of certain procedural lapses which have occasioned as evident from the application and not of a substantial review based on the merits of the petition and that only under the later case namely, substantial review when it is sought for from this Tribunal it could not exercise its inherent powers whereas in the case of the former, namely, a procedural review it is within the scope and ambit of powers of this Tribunal being an adjudicating authority. 13. We are unable to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the applicant in this regard. The averment made in the application at paragraph 10 of the above application discloses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince repaid the unpaid operational debt. If neither exists, then an application once filed has to be disposed of by the adjudicating authority within 14 days of its receipt, either by admitting it or rejecting it. An appeal can then be filed to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 61 of the Act within 30 days of the order of the Adjudicating Authority with an extension of 15 further days and no more. 27. Section 64 of the Code mandates that where these timelines are not adhered to, either by the Tribunal or by the Appellate Tribunal, they shall record reasons for not doing so within the period so specified and extend the period so specified for another period not exceeding 10 days. Even in appeals to the Supreme Court from the Appellate Tribunal under Section 62, 45 days time is given from the date of receipt of the order of the Appellate Tribunal in which an appeal to the Supreme Court is to be made, with a further grace period not exceeding 15 days. The strict adherence of these timelines is of essence to both the triggering process and the insolvency resolution process. As we have seen, one of the principal reasons why the Code was enacted was because liquidation proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
