SC: Clarificatory Statement Does Not Constitute a Binding Undertaking for Contempt Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Litigant Cannot be Worse Off for Filing an Appeal under ‘No Reformatio in Peius’  ||  Orissa HC: Article 22(1) Arrest Rights Pre-Exist, Written Grounds Ruling Not Prospective  ||  Kerala HC: Kissing a Child’s Penis Constitutes Penetrative Sexual Assault under POCSO  ||  Madras HC: Married Daughter Cannot be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely for Her Marriage  ||  Bombay High Court: Child Welfare Prevails as ‘Joint Parenting’ is Not Recognised in Indian Law  ||  Kerala HC: Minor’s Consent or Relationship with Accused Holds No Relevance under POCSO Act  ||  Bombay HC: Failure to Prove Exact Quantum of Loss Does Not Bar Compensation  ||  CCPA Fines Dial4Trade Rs. 10 Lakh for Online Ammonium Nitrate Listing Featuring Blast Images  ||  Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order    

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