TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act, 2013. HELD THAT:- As per the provision of Rule 154 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, the Tribunal is only entitled to rectify the clerical or arithmetical mistakes or error arising from accidental slip or omission. In the present application the applicants sought to correct a factual error in the order passed by this Tribunal. Considering the above mentioned Rule, the Tribunal can exercise the power for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view which was made while deciding a matter. In the instant case, I do not find that the present Application which has been filed similar to a Review Application cannot be entertained, as the Application for rectification of order does not show any clerical or arithmetical mistakes. This T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ications as per this order, with Registrar of Companies within a period of one month. V. The Respondent Company is directed to pay ₹ 25000 to the Petitioner towards the costs and damages sustained by the Petitioner in this regard. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that: a) In para 19 and 20, this Tribunal has on the basis of the submissions of the Respondent/Petitioner concluded that Regulation 9 of Table A/ F is not applicable to the Applicant/Respondent Company. The above conclusion is erroneous as Clause 6 of the Articles of Association is replica of Regulation 9 of Table A/F. Clause 6 of AOA and Regulations 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Table A/Table F dealing with power of the Company with respect to lien on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l mistakes in any order of the Tribunal or error therein arsing from any accidental slip or omission at any time, be corrected by the Tribunal on its own motion or on application of any party by way of rectification. The rectification sought for through the above Interlocutory Application is neither comes under the category of clerical mistakes nor comes under the category of arithmetical error in the order of the Tribunal, and hence it is out of the purview of Rule 154. Further, the applicants have not been demonstrated at that there was any accidental slip or an omission to get the order rectified. It is true that under Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013, this Bench may at any time within two years from the date of the order with a vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this Section shall apply to the articles of a Company registered under any previous company law unless amended under this Act . The applicants company did not make any amendments in the Articles after the commencement of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the powers of the Board of the applicant company are circumscribed under Clause 6 of the Articles of Association. As there is a conscious omission of subsequent powers to the Board of the Company provided in Regulation 10 to 12 of Table A by clearly indicating that the Clause 6 of the Articles of Association dealing with lien on shares is applicable and not Regulation 9 of Table A, it can be seen that the powers of the Board on exercising lien on shares do not extend beyond the scope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleged by the Respondent is hereby denied and therefore the Respondent is also not entitled to any cost as the Application is a very relevant application in the process of delivery of justice. FINDINGS:- 11. I have gone through the order dated 05.03.2020 in CP/96/KOB/2019. Rule 154 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 is reproduced below: Rule 154. Rectification of Order.- (1) Any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order of the Tribunal or error therein arising from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the Tribunal on its own motion or on application of any party by way of rectification. (2) An application under sub-Rule (1) may be made in Form No.NCLT 9 within two years fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to modify its own order but can only correct mistake apparent from the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 2004 dated 15.09.2008) that a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it can be said to be an error apparent on the face of record and can be corrected. An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the recorded if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need long-drawn out proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
