Tribunal lacks authority to review orders under Companies Act. No provision grants such power. Applications dismissed.

The Tribunal determined it lacks the authority to review its own orders as no provision in the Companies Act, 2013, or NCLT Rules grants such power. Additionally, the non-consideration of cited judgments did not constitute a "mistake apparent from the record." Consequently, the applications were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to review its own order.
2. Whether the non-consideration of oral and written arguments and cited judgments constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Power of Review:
The Tribunal examined whether it possesses the authority to review its own orders. Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, were scrutinized. Section 420(2) allows the Tribunal to rectify any apparent mistake within two years from the date of the order, provided no appeal has been preferred against such order. Rule 11 confers inherent powers to the Tribunal to make necessary orders to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. However, the Tribunal concluded that the power to review is not inherent and must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The Tribunal found no provision in the Companies Act, 2013, or the NCLT Rules that expressly or impliedly grants it the power to review its own orders. Therefore, the Tribunal determined it lacks the authority to review its own orders.

2. Mistake Apparent from the Record:
The Tribunal then addressed whether the non-consideration of oral and written arguments and cited judgments in its previous order constituted a "mistake apparent from the record." The Applicants argued that the Tribunal's failure to consider certain decisions (Praveen Shankaralayam v. Elan Professional Appliances, Esquire Electronics Inc. v. Netherlands India Communications Enterprises Ltd., and Sanjay Agarwal v. Meghalaya Finlease (P.) Ltd.) amounted to such a mistake. They relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Asstt. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 14 SCC 171, which defined a "mistake apparent from the record" as a patent, manifest, and self-evident error.

The Tribunal acknowledged that it did not refer to the cited judgments in its order dated 29.05.2017. However, it emphasized that the issue of delay and latches was reserved for final hearing, and the Tribunal had observed that the allegations were of continuous oppression and mismanagement. The Tribunal noted that the decisions cited by the Applicants did not lay down a proposition of law applicable to all fact situations but were specific to their respective cases. The Tribunal found that non-consideration of these judgments did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record, as it did not meet the criteria of being a patent, manifest, and self-evident error.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that it does not have the power to review its own orders and that the non-consideration of the cited judgments did not amount to a mistake apparent from the record. Consequently, the applications filed by the original respondents 1 and 2 were dismissed.

---