Tribunal lacks power to review order, dismisses application based on pecuniary limit.

M/s. Arrowline Organic Products Pvt. Ltd Versus M/s. Rockwell Industries Limited

M/s. Arrowline Organic Products Pvt. Ltd Versus M/s. Rockwell Industries Limited - [2021] 225 Comp Cas 448 (NCLT–Chen) Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Notification dated 24.03.2020 regarding the increase in the threshold limit for filing a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
2. Power of the Tribunal to recall or review its own order.
3. Jurisdictional validity of the order dated 05.05.2020 in light of the Notification dated 24.03.2020.
4. Retrospective versus prospective applicability of the Notification dated 24.03.2020.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Notification dated 24.03.2020:
The Applicant/Corporate Debtor sought to recall the order passed on 05.05.2020, arguing that the Notification dated 24.03.2020, which increased the minimum threshold limit from Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs. 1 Crore, should apply retrospectively. The Respondent/Operational Creditor contended that the Notification should be applied prospectively and that the Tribunal had no power to recall or review its order based on this Notification.

2. Power of the Tribunal to Recall or Review its Own Order:
The Respondent/Operational Creditor argued that the Tribunal lacked the power to recall or review its order under Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013, or Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. The Tribunal agreed, stating that unless specifically provided by the statute, it does not possess the power to review or recall its own final orders. The Tribunal cited several judgments to support this position, including Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union Of India & Ors. and NUI Pulp and Paper Industries (P) Ltd v. Roxel Trading GHBH.

3. Jurisdictional Validity of the Order Dated 05.05.2020:
The Tribunal noted that it had jurisdiction over the matter as the pecuniary limit at the time of filing the petition was Rs. 1 Lakh. The Tribunal emphasized that the Notification dated 24.03.2020 did not specify a retrospective effect, and therefore, could not be applied to cases filed before its issuance. The Tribunal referenced the judgment in M/s. Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. to support its jurisdictional stance.

4. Retrospective Versus Prospective Applicability of the Notification:
The Tribunal examined whether the Notification could be applied retrospectively. It concluded that the Notification dated 24.03.2020 should be considered prospective, as the Central Government did not have the express power to issue a retrospective Notification. The Tribunal cited several judgments, including Dr. Indramani Pyarelal Gupta v. W.R. Nath and Bakul Cashew Co. vs. State Tax Officer Quilon, to support the principle that delegated legislation cannot have retrospective effect unless expressly provided.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Application filed by the Applicant/Corporate Debtor, stating that it lacked the power to recall or review its order dated 05.05.2020. The Notification dated 24.03.2020 was deemed to apply prospectively, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to pass the order based on the pecuniary limit of Rs. 1 Lakh, which was in effect at the time of filing the petition. The Application was dismissed without costs.