Revisional application successful: NCLT order set aside for patent perversity. Prompt decision ordered.

The revisional application challenging the National Company Law Tribunal's order was successful. The impugned order was set aside due to patent perversity, leading to a manifest failure of justice. The Tribunal was directed to promptly decide on the pending application within four weeks. The revisional application was disposed of with no order as to costs, and certified copies of the order were to be provided to the parties upon request.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in C.A. No. 378 of 2014 and I.A. No. 59 of 2017 arising from C.P. No. 48 of 1996 under Sections 197 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order dated April 11, 2017, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in I.A. No. 59 of 2017. The history of the case dates back to applications filed in 1996 and 1999 under Sections 197 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company Law Board dismissed both petitions in 2005. Subsequently, the Companies Act, 2013 came into force, transferring proceedings to the Tribunal. The petitioner sought to recall the order dated January 30, 2017, alleging that the Tribunal did not consider their submissions and contentions. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application under Section 420(2) of the Act of 2013 on April 11, 2017, stating the remedy lay in appealing to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's rejection was erroneous, citing the Supreme Court cases of Shalini Shyam Shetty and K.V.S. Ram. The opposite parties did not dispute the petitioner's contentions. The Court noted that the Tribunal failed to record the petitioner's arguments and did not rectify the mistake apparent on the face of the record. Relying on the Supreme Court decisions, the Court found the impugned order vitiated by patent perversity, leading to a manifest failure of justice.

Consequently, the revisional application succeeded, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal was directed to decide on I.A. No. 59 of 2017 promptly, preferably within four weeks. The revisional application was disposed of with no order as to costs, and certified copies of the order were to be provided to the parties upon request.

---