Rakesh Kumar Jain#Kanthi Narhari#Alok Srivastava#31NL1510MiscellaneousMANURakesh Kumar Jain,TRIBUNALSAbsence#Abuse#Act#Adjudicating Authority#AID#Amendment#Any Order#Appeal#Appellate Tribunal#Application#Application Under#Authority#Bank#Bankruptcy#Barter#Bearing#Bench#Case#Central Government#Civil Appeal#Co-Operative Society#Code of Civil Procedure#Company#Concern#Contentions#Cost#Date#Date Of#Date of the Order#Decision#Deposit#Direction#Ends of Justice#Enterprise#Equipment#Erroneous#Filing#Finance#Finding#Firm#Fund#Government#Grant#Hereby#India#Industrial Tribunal#Information#Inherent Power#Inherent Powers#Insolvency#Liberty#Litigation#Meeting#Member#Members#Mistake#Month#National#Necessary Implication#New#Notice#Order#Parties#Pass#Period#Permission#Permit#Plea#Power of Review#Procedural Safeguard#Procedure#Process#Prohibition#Prohibitions#Questions of Fact#Record#Rectification#Reference#Registrar#Relief#Relief Fund#Remedies#Remedy#Resolution#Review#Review Application#Revision#Right#Safeguard#Statute#Statutory#Statutory Prohibition#Suit#Time Within#Tribunal2023-2-28692390,377530,20527 -->

MANU/NL/0133/2023

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

Review Application No. 1 of 2023 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 168 of 2017

Decided On: 21.02.2023

Appellants: Balaji Enterprises Vs. Respondent: Gammon India Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Member (J)), Kanthi Narhari and Dr. Alok Srivastava

ORDER

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Member (J))

1. The Appellant/Applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') against the Respondent for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (in short 'CIRP') before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai). The application was dismissed on 19.07.2017.

2. The Appellant preferred an Appeal bearing CA (AT) (Ins) No. 168 of 2017 before this Tribunal against the order dated 19.07.2017 which was disposed of on 10.11.2017.

3. The Appellant/Applicant thereafter filed Civil Appeal No. 23520 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said Appeal was withdrawn by the Appellant on 12.10.2022 in which the following order was passed:-

"After the matter was heard at some length, learned Counsel for the appellant has made a request to permit withdrawal of the present appeal to approach the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) by way of filing a review application.

The appeal is accordingly permitted to be withdrawn."

4. The Applicant/Appellant has now filed this Review Application, invoking Rule 11 of the NCLAT, Rules, 2016 (in short 'Rules') r/w Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 (in short 'Act'), of the order dated 10.11.2017 passed by this Tribunal in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 168 of 2017.

5. At the outset, Counsel for the Applicant has been asked as to how the Review Application is maintainable in the absence of a provision of review in the Code.

6. Although, Counsel for the Applicant could not refer to any provision of review in the Code but it is submitted that the order dated 10.11.2017 can be reviewed in view of Rule 11 of the Rules and Section 420(2) of the Act and also in view of the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

7. We have heard Counsel for the Applicant and perused the record.

8. The Applicant has invoked Rule 11 of the Rules. The said Rules read as under:-

"Inherent powers. - Noting in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Appellate Tribunal to make such orders or give such ........