TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm Review judicially and literally means reexamination or re-consideration . Under the guise of Review the Tribunal would not rehear the parties both on facts and Law . If two views are possible on the point involved, the same is not a ground for Review . It cannot be gainsaid that I B Code, 2016 does not contain any provision for Review . Also, it does not contain any provision similar to Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013. In this connection, a mere perusal of the National Company Law Appellate Rule 2016 unerringly point out that there is no express Rule for Review . There can be no two opinion of a prime fact that Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 is not a substantive Rule which confers any power or jurisdiction on the Tribunal . A Tribunal has no power to perform an act which is forbidden by Law - The term record in Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 means record to the proceedings of the case. An error must be a patent error and not a mere wrong decision . Where two views are possible and the matter is debatable, the order cannot be rectified by mistake apparent from record. When there is no mistake apparent from the record in the judgement de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the 1st Respondent / ARC before the Adjudicating Authority November 2012 is categorically written in the date of default column and, therefore, there is no scope for interpretation in respect of the date of default , in view of the law laid down in Vasdeo R. Bhojwani V. Abhyudya Cooperative Bank Ltd. Anr. (vide Civil Appeal No. 11020 of 2018 reported in 2019) 9 SCC page 158. 5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant emphatically comes out with a plea that to bring the application u/s 7 of the I B Code within the period of limitation, the Tribunal had relied upon the acknowledgment from one subsequent date i.e. 9.6.2016 as on this date an Acceptance of Loan Assignment Agreement was signed with a new loan agreement for fresh financing of ₹ 5 crores was signed by the Corporate Debtor and its Directors including the Appellant. Besides this, some payments were made but in the new loan, as per the averments of the Respondents. But these payments cannot save the time barred loan, as these are beyond the period of Limitation. 6. Expatiating his contention, the Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed and need not travel beyond record to see whether the judgement is correct or not. Such aspects beyond record cannot be gone into and considered on the strength of Section 420(2) of the Companies Act. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant takes a plea that in the instant case, for none of the errors, this Tribunal has to travel beyond the record, as all apparent on the record and that the date of default was November, 2012 and that the date of filing of an application u/s 7 of the Code was on 06.09.2018. 12. The Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant puts forth legal argument that no amount of new loan can extend the limitation of old loan and further this Tribunal had applied Section 18 of the Limitation Act to an alleged acknowledgement which is beyond three years from the date of default and this cannot be an acknowledgement in the eye of Law and further that this is the self-evident error from the fact of record and that no other records need to be seen. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant submits that the Default in I B Code has a specific meaning as default of loan demanded by the Bank and it c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion V. Gurdip Singh reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court page 3737. In reality, Review erases the previous judgement and hence, operates as Law from the inception as per decision of Hon ble Supreme Court M.A. Murthy V. State of Karnataka Ors. reported in 2003 7 SCC at page 517. Even for correcting an erroneous decision Review does not lie. 18. It is an axiomatic principle in Law that an error contemplated must be such which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. The term Review judicially and literally means reexamination or re-consideration . Under the guise of Review the Tribunal would not rehear the parties both on facts and Law . If two views are possible on the point involved, the same is not a ground for Review as per decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. of Bihar Ors. reported in (2006) 1 SCC page 509. A re-appraisal of evidence on record for finding out an error would amount to an exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction which is impermissible in Law. 19. It is significant to point out that a Court or Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review its decision duly pron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Act, 2013 for filing the Review Application on the purported ground of rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, within two years from the date of order passed, in the considered opinion of this Court. 24. As far as the Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 is concerned, the same was heard on 17.02.2020, arguments were advanced on both sides and that the Judgement was reserved. In fact, the judgement was pronounced on 05.03.2020 whereby and whereunder the Appeal was found to be bereft of any merits and the same was dismissed without costs. As such, the counter plea taken by the Review Applicant/Appellant that earlier orders dated 30.09.2019, 13.11.2019 and 04.12.2019 were not taken into account by this Tribunal while disposing of main appeal sans merits and it is an otiose one. 25. It cannot be gainsaid that I B Code, 2016 does not contain any provision for Review . Also, it does not contain any provision similar to Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013. In this connection, a mere perusal of the National Company Law Appellate Rule 2016 unerringly point out that there is no express Rule for Review . There can be no two opinion of a prime fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
