Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment  ||  SC: Later Sanction Requirement Won’t Invalidate Cognizance Taken When No Prior Bar Existed  ||  SC: Documents Not Admitted by an Employee in an Enquiry Must be Proved Through Witnesses  ||  Delhi HC: MHA Has Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against AGMUT IAS Officers  ||  MP HC: Financial Hardship or Mere Allegations of Lawyer’s Negligence Cannot Excuse Delayed Appeal  ||  Patna HC: Blanket Approach of Denying Public Employment to Individuals Named in an FIR is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC: Repeated Possession of Even Small Quantities of Narcotic Drugs Can Invoke KAAPA  ||  Calcutta HC: Employers May Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity of Employees Refusing to Vacate Quarters  ||  Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States    

Balaji Enterprise vs. Gammon India Limited And Ors. - (NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) (21 Feb 2023)

In the absence of a provision of review in the IBC, inherent powers provided under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules cannot be invoked for the purpose of filing a Review Application

MANU/NL/0133/2023

Insolvency

The Appellant/Applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against the Respondent for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai). The Applicant/Appellant has filed present Review Application, invoking Rule 11 of the NCLAT, Rules, 2016 read with Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Section 420(2) of Act pertains to the power of the Tribunal for rectification of the mistakes that too if the order passed by the Tribunal is not further appealed. Therefore, this provision is not applicable to the present case and does not create a right of review in any manner. In the absence of a provision of review in the Code, which is complete in itself, inherent powers provided under Rule 11 of the Rules cannot be invoked for the purpose of filing a Review Application.

In the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Ors., it has been held by the Supreme Court that the power of review is not an inherent power, it must be conferred either specifically or by necessary implication. Thus, the Review Application is not maintainable from any angle, it may be seen and is in fact an abuse of the process of law, therefore, the Applicant deserves to be saddled with cost of this litigation. Therefore, the Review Application is dismissed.

Tags : APPLICATION   REVIEW   MAINTAINABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved