Dismissal of Review Application under Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code: Emphasis on Legal Procedures

The National Company Law Tribunal dismissed the application for review/recall of an order passed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of provisions for review under the IBC and NCLT Rules, stating that permissions granted by the Supreme Court did not constitute a directive for review. The decision highlighted the necessity of following legal frameworks and established procedures in insolvency resolution processes, ultimately leading to the rejection of the review/recall application.

---

---

Issues:
- Review/recall of an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under IBC, 2016
- Interpretation of permissions granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
- Existence of provisions for review under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Analysis:

1. The application before the National Company Law Tribunal sought a review/recall of an order passed under Section 60 (5) of the IBC, 2016. The petitioner, State Bank of India, initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, which was challenged by the respondent based on RBI instructions without government concurrence, leading to a reversal of the initial order. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision granting permission to file a review, invoking the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the IBC and NCLT Rules.

2. The respondent's reply highlighted legal proceedings before the High Court and the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the permissions granted did not equate to a direction for review. The Supreme Court's order in a related Civil Appeal permitted withdrawal with liberty to approach the NCLT for review, which the Tribunal examined in light of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, concluding that it did not constitute a direction under this provision.

3. The Tribunal delved into the absence of specific provisions for review under the IBC, 2016 and NCLT Rules, emphasizing that the permissions granted by the Supreme Court were not tantamount to a directive for review. The applicant's failure to appeal the initial order before the NCLAT was noted, with the Tribunal underscoring the lack of legal basis for a review/recall application under the current legal framework.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application for review/recall, citing the absence of provisions for review under the IBC, 2016, and the lack of precedents or judgments supporting such a course of action. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to legal frameworks and established procedures within insolvency resolution processes, leading to the dismissal of the application.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the Tribunal's judgment concerning the review/recall application, the interpretation of permissions granted by the Supreme Court, and the absence of provisions for review under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal issues and conclusions involved in the case.

---