AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
21.11.2022: This Review Application has been filed by the Applicant making following prayers:
“(a)Review Order dated 11.12.2019 passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1082 of 2019 to the extent of the findings in paragraph No.4 and direct Operational Creditor (Respondent No.1 herein) to pay the CIRP costs to Respondent No.2 (IRP).
(b)Such other and further reliefs that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
When the Appeal was called for hearing today, no one appeared for the Applicant/Appellant. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has appeared and opposed the Review Application. Reply has been filed by both Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 in the Review Application opposing the review.
It is submitted by leaned counsel for the Respondent that this Tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction to review and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on basis of which Review Application has been filed has directed that the review petition be dealt with in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the Respondent has also placed reliance on judgment of this Tribunal in “Adish Jain vs. Sumit Bansal & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 52”.
We have looked into the Review Application and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the Respondents.
The Review Application has been filed seeking review of the judgment of this Tribunal dated 11.12.2019 by which Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1082 of 2019 was allowed. Challenging the said order the Applicant/Appellant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 821/2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the Appeal with following order dated 07.02.2020:
“O R D E R
1.Since the only question of cost/fee has been agitated in the appeal, we permit the appellant to file review before the NCLAT on the limited aspect.
2.In case, the aforementioned petition is filed, let it be dealt with in accordance with law.
3.The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
4.Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
This Tribunal while allowing the appeal has dealt with the question of fee in Para 4 of the judgment, which is to the following effect:
“4.In the circumstances we assess the fee of IRP/RP at Rs.1 lac per month i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- for 2½ months and entitled for Rs.80,000/- towards actual expenses i.e. total Rs.3,30,000/-. The appellant will pay Rs.3,30,000/- to IRP/RP towards fee and actual expenses incurred. The IRP/RP has already received Rs.3,00,000/- from 1st Respondent. The IRP/RP will refund Rs.3,00,000/- to 1st respondent within one week from the date of receipt of total amount of Rs.3,30,000/- from the appellant. The Corporate Debtor is released from rigour of CIRP. IPR/RP will hand over the keys of the premises to the appellant/promoter immediately on receipt of the amount.”
In Para 4 of the judgment, there is no error apparent on the record which can be corrected by this Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction. The judgment of this Tribunal in “Adish Jain vs. Sumit Bansal & Anr.” (supra) relied by the Respondent do support the submission of learned counsel for the Respondent. In Para 4 to 7 of the said judgment following has been held:
“4.It is the case of the Review Applicant that the accounts were reconciled with the sister concerns and therefore no amount was 'due and payable' and hence there is an 'error apparent on the face of record' and sought for remanding the matter to the Learned Adjudicating Authority for a de novo consideration.
5.It is pertinent to mention that on an Appeal preferred by the Review Applicant/Appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2960 of 2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Appeal on 04.09.2020, observing as follows;
"Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.08.2020 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of."
6.Thereafter a Review Petition/Civil No. 1824 of 2020 was preferred by the Review Applicant/Appellant and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while rejecting the Review Petition on 03.11.2020, ordered as follows;
"Review Petition is rejected as it is always open to the petitioner to file a review petition before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, if it is otherwise permissible in law."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7.This Tribunal has no inherent power to review its own Order. We have heard this Review Applicant at length considering the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Question is, whether it is otherwise permissible in law for this Tribunal to "Review" its Judgement passed in Appeal.”
This Tribunal has no inherent power to review its own order/judgment. The Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has been relied by the Applicant for filing this petition has also stated that review petition be dealt with in accordance with law. While dealing with the review petition in accordance with law, we can correct any error apparent on the face of the record only in exercise of jurisdiction which is vested with this Tribunal. This Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction of substantive review of an order which has been passed by this Tribunal. Present is not a case where any error apparent has been committed by this Tribunal in passing order dated 11.12.2019. Para 4 of the judgment of this Tribunal which has been questioned, only issues direction to the Appellant to pay fee and expenses to the IRP/RP. We, thus, do not find any merit in the Review Application. Review Application is dismissed.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Respondent that the Review Application has been filed beyond limitation. We have entered into the merits of the application and having already dismissed the application, we are not required to enter into this issue.