TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Permission Denied for Review Application in Company Appeal</h1> <h3>Financial Creditors of Amtek Auto Ltd. Through Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian Versus Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) & Ors.</h3> Financial Creditors of Amtek Auto Ltd. Through Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian Versus Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) & Ors. - TMI Issues:1. Review of the order dated 27.01.2022 passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 729 of 2020.2. Maintainability of the review application in the absence of a provision for review in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.3. Invocation of Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 for inherent powers of the Tribunal.Issue 1: Review of the order dated 27.01.2022:The Review Application was filed to review the order dated 27.01.2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 729 of 2020, citing liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2022. The Appellant, not a party in the original appeal, filed an appeal due to observations against the RP in Para 10.28 of the said order. An application for leave to appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court on 01.04.2022, granting permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a review application before the NCLAT, leading to the present review application.Issue 2: Maintainability of the review application:The Respondent argued that there is no provision in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for filing a review application. Even though permission was granted by the Supreme Court to file the review application, it does not establish the maintainability of such an application before the Tribunal in the absence of a review provision in the Code. The Counsel for the Appellant invoked Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, claiming inherent powers of the Tribunal. However, it was held that no review application is maintainable before the Tribunal without a specific provision for review in the Code. The Appellant was advised to explore other legal remedies if still aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2022.Issue 3: Invocation of Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016:The Counsel for the Appellant argued that Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 provides inherent powers to the Tribunal. However, the Respondent contended that while the Rule could be invoked through appropriate proceedings, the present review application was limited to the scope of the Supreme Court's order. The Tribunal concurred with the Respondent's argument, emphasizing that the absence of a review provision in the Code precludes the maintainability of the review application, suggesting the Appellant explore alternative legal avenues if dissatisfied with the previous order.
TaxTMI 