TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmatory letters exchanged between the Applicant and the sister concerns of both the Applicant and the Respondent No. 2/ Operational Creditor for the period 21.10.2017 to 30.04.2018 (pages 429 to 460 and 464 to 466) and the journal entries mentioned in the replies dated 28.08.2018 and 05.11.2018 were also not considered by this Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant drew our attention to the grounds raised before this Tribunal with respect to his submissions that there was a Pre-Existing Dispute ; v. Because the NCLT has failed to appreciate that notice of dispute need not contain the entire gist of dispute as long as it is mentioned that there have been journal entries have been passed, reconciliation statements made and that no amount is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor. viii. Because the Hon ble NCLT has erred in holding that disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor is illusory and moonshine specially when the ledger of the Corporate Debtor has been reconciled and admitted by the Operational Creditor by signing the same. Further, these accounting entries in the ledger of the Corporate Debtor have been backed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction as per provisions of IBC. It is a well settled proposition that a Court or Tribunal has no Jurisdiction to review its Orders unless authorized by a statute as per the decision Fernandes V/s. Ranga Nayakulu AIR 1953 Mad. 236. 7. On the question of power to Review under Order 47 Rule 1, C.P.C. 1908, in its earlier decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyanarayan Laxmi Narayan Hegde Ors. v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale , MANU/SC/0169/1959 : 1959 (SLT Soft) 10 : (1960) 1 SCR 890, made certain observations, which was followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh , MANU/SC/0843/2003 : VI (2003) SLT 582 : IV (2003) CLT 375 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 4179, relevant portion of which is quoted herein :- An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on point where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 as if it is looking into it for the first time, for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party if at all is to file appeal or revision before the higher Forum or review application before the very Forum, subject to the limitations in respect of such review. It implies that the section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the Courts below have been liberally construing and applying the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of Code even after passing of effective orders in the list pending before them. No Court can, under the cover of the aforesaid sections, modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. (Emphasis Supplied) Inherent Powers 10. Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 speaks of inherent powers and the same is reproduced as hereunder; Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Appellate Tribunal to make such orders or give directions as may be necessary for meeting the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e disposal of appeal. 13. 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. 14. 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. This Tribunal has also discussed the Power of Review in detail in Anubhav Anilkumar Agarwal V/s. Bank of India and RNA Corp. Pvt. Ltd. in Review Application (AT) No. 15 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1504 of 2019. This Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) Nos. 105, 107, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. This is apart from the fact that signatures purporting to be of Mr. Gandhi being pointed out by Appellant do not match even on bare reading of his service record. We find force in the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Operational Creditor that the Articles of Association of the Company mandate the presence and signature of the Director wherever the stamp of the Company is used and he placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, in Kotla Venkataswamy V/s Chinta Ramamurthy, AIR MAD 579. Additionally, the material on record shows that the ledger which the Appellant is relying upon and states that they have been signed by the Operational Creditor and M/s Oyster Steel and Iron Pvt. Ltd. are dated 01.04.2019 whereas the Operational Creditor had demanded the same debt from the Corporate Debtor in the notices dated 17.08.2018 and 27.10.2018. Further, there are no substantial reasons given as to why only the ledger of the Corporate Debtor depict these entries and the same are not reflected in the ledger of the Operational Creditor when it is the specific case of the Appellant that both sides have confirmed these accounts. 6. The submission o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
