AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
28.01.2022: Heard counsel for the Applicant. This Review Application has been filed by the Applicant praying to review the Judgment dated 26.08.2021 passed by this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 658 of 2021. A few facts are necessary to be noted before deciding this Review Application.
The Applicant had participated in an auction for property which was published for e-auction by the Liquidator. His final bid was accepted and consideration was paid. Liquidator filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority seeking permission to re-auction the property. The said application was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority by directing for re-auction by order dated 03.08.2021. Aggrieved by the said order Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 658 of 2021 was filed by the Applicant under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which was heard and dismissed on merits on 26.08.2021, against which this Review Application has been filed.
The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that this Review Application has been filed under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. Section 420 sub-section (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 provides as follows:
“Section 420: Orders of Tribunal.
(2)The Tribunal may, at any time within two years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it, and shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties:
Provided that no such amendment shall be made in respect of any order against which an appeal has been preferred under this Act.”
The provisions of Section 420 sub-section (2) provides for rectification of any mistakes apparent from the record. The present is not a case of any mistake in the order which is sought to be rectified by this Review Application. Applicant in this Review Application is seeking review of the judgment. The submission of the learned counsel for the Applicant is that order was obtained from fraud by Liquidator from the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal ought to have interfered with the order of the Adjudicating Authority. He has also referred to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2006 SC 3028, where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any orders obtained by fraud is nullity. It is not the case of the Appellant that order which is prayed to be reviewed was obtained by fraud.
The present is the case where the question is that the Review Application filed by the Applicant praying review of judgment is maintainable under Section 420 sub-section (2) as claimed by learned counsel for the Applicant. We are of the view that this application is not maintainable under Section 420 sub-section (2) of the Companies Act as well as Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 since it is not an application for rectification of any mistakes apparent from the record but the application is for review of the judgment on the merits, which is not permissible. We are of the view that remedy, if any, available to the Applicant was to challenge the impugned order by filing an appeal. The application for review is rejected.