Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman Announces Union Budget 2024  ||  Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman Announces Union Budget 2024  ||  Del. HC: CCS Rules Denying Maternity Leave to Women with More than 2 Children, Needs Re- Examination  ||  SC: Court not Sentencing Convict to Life Imprisonment, Can’t Impose Sentence Beyond 10 Years  ||  Supreme Court: Stay Should be Granted in Bail Order Only in Exceptional Cases  ||  SC: Split Verdict Delivered in Challenge to Approval for Genetically Modified Mustard Cultivation  ||  Bom. HC: Issues Which Only Dispose of the Suit Partly, Cannot be Framed by Trial Court  ||  Bom. HC: Can’t Include Allegations of Ill-treatment by Man Against his Family u/s 498A of IPC  ||  Ker. HC: Can Quash Detention Order if Representation of Detenue Isn’t Considered Timely  ||  Man. HC: IT Officer to Communicate Order of Reassessment and Demand Notice Within Time    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved