NCLT rules no power to review orders under Companies Act; appeals dismissed, costs imposed.

The NCLT held that it lacked the power to review its own orders under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The non-consideration of certain judgments and written submissions was deemed not to constitute a "mistake apparent from the record." The appeals were dismissed with costs of Rs. 1 lakh each to be paid by the respective appellants to the State through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation and delay in filing the petition.
2. NCLT's power to review its own orders under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. Whether non-consideration of certain judgments and written submissions constitutes a "mistake apparent from the record."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation and Delay in Filing the Petition:
The appellants raised grievances regarding the delay and latches in filing the company petitions, arguing that the petitions were barred by limitation due to the significant time lapse between the alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement (2001-2006) and the filing of the petitions in 2015. The NCLT, in its order dated 29th May 2017, noted that there was no specific limitation period under the Companies Act, 1956, for filing such petitions. The Tribunal observed that the petitions contained allegations of continuous acts of oppression and mismanagement, which required a detailed examination of the facts and documents. Therefore, the question of limitation was considered a mixed question of law and facts, and the Tribunal decided not to dismiss the petitions without conducting a final hearing.

2. NCLT's Power to Review Its Own Orders Under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013:
The appellants filed applications under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking a review of the NCLT's order dated 29th May 2017, claiming that their oral arguments and written submissions on delay and latches were not considered. The NCLT, in its impugned orders dated 16th February 2018, held that it had no power to review its own orders. The Tribunal could only rectify "mistakes apparent from the record," but the non-consideration of judgments and written submissions did not constitute such a mistake. The NCLT referred to the judgment in "Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch, South Exchange Limited," where the Supreme Court held that the power to review is not inherent and must be specifically conferred by law.

3. Whether Non-Consideration of Certain Judgments and Written Submissions Constitutes a "Mistake Apparent from the Record":
The appellants argued that the non-consideration of certain judgments and written submissions constituted a "mistake apparent from the record." They relied on the judgment in "Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch, South Exchange Limited," where the Supreme Court held that a patent and self-evident error that does not require elaborate discussion can be corrected as an error apparent on the face of the record. However, the NCLT distinguished this case, noting that the issue of delay and latches is a mixed question of law and facts, and the non-consideration of certain judgments does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal emphasized that an error apparent on the face of the record must be manifest and clear without requiring extensive reasoning.

Conclusion:
The NCLT concluded that it did not have the power to review its own orders and that the non-consideration of certain judgments and written submissions did not constitute a "mistake apparent from the record." The Tribunal's reasoning was found to be well-founded, and the appeals were dismissed with costs, as the effort to recall and rewrite the order dated 29th May 2017 was not acceptable. Each appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1 lakh to be paid by the respective appellants to the State through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

---