Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2022) 02 NCLAT CK 0075

SRLK Enterprises LLP vs Jalan Transolutions (India) Ltd

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 22 February 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson · Dr. Alok Srivastava, Member (T)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Review Application No. 04 Of 2021 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 294 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 346 words
1.

This is a Review Application filed by the Applicant under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that Applicant had filed the Settlement Deed along with I.A. No. 567 of 2019 whereas in the Judgment of this Tribunal dated 08th April, 2021 this fact was not noticed and observations of the Court in this Judgment at Paragraph 6 are to the effect that “Settlement was not brought on record”.

2.

We have perused the Judgment of this Tribunal dated 08th April, 2021 where earlier Order passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority on 09th May, 2019 has been extracted and observations have been made at paragraph 6 to the effect as follows:

“6. Going through the Impugned Order dated 26th February, 2021 which seeks to recall the Order dated 09th May, 2019 which also we have seen, we find it difficult to take a different view from the Adjudicating Authority. There is difference between withdrawal simplicitor making statement that parties have settled. It is different when bringing the settlement on record, and making it a part of the Order of withdrawal liberty is taken and brought on record to restore the proceedings in case of default. IBC is not a recovery proceeding where because the money or part of it has not come, the party may repeatedly come to the Court. Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that no liberty to revive was there and so declined to interfere. The Appellant would be at liberty to pursue other remedies in law.”

3.

We are of the view that there is no mistake committed by the Court which can be corrected in exercise of power under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The remedy of the Applicant was to challenge the Judgment of this Tribunal by way of an Appeal if he was so aggrieved. This Application which is Review Application under Section 420(2) of the Companies  Act,  2013  read  with  Rule  11  of  NCLAT  Rules,  2016  is  not maintainable and accordingly rejected.