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>Review Application Dismissed: Time Limit Acknowledgment Rule</h1> <h3>Deepakk Kumar Director of M/s Sovereign Infrastructure & Developers Ltd. Versus M/s Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. (Trustee of Phoenix Trust FY 16-15 Scheme B), M/s Sovereign Infrastructure & Developers Ltd.</h3> Deepakk Kumar Director of M/s Sovereign Infrastructure & Developers Ltd. Versus M/s Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. (Trustee of Phoenix Trust FY 16-15 Scheme B), ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) was filed within the limitation period.2. Whether the Review Application can be entertained under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016.3. Whether the Tribunal has the authority to review its own decisions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Limitation Period for Section 7 Application:The Review Applicant contended that the application under Section 7 of the I&B Code, filed on 06.09.2018, was beyond the limitation period. The original loan default date was November 2012, and the three-year limitation period ended on 31.10.2015. The Appellate Tribunal had previously held that the application was within the limitation period based on an acknowledgment dated 9.6.2016, when the loan assignment agreement was accepted. The Review Applicant argued that this acknowledgment could not extend the limitation period for a time-barred loan. The Tribunal had relied on the acknowledgment and subsequent payments, which the Review Applicant claimed were beyond the limitation period and could not save the time-barred loan.2. Review Application under Section 420(2) and Rule 11:The Review Applicant argued that the Tribunal had the authority to rectify any mistake apparent from the record under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. However, the Tribunal clarified that the power to review is not inherent and must be expressly provided by law. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to review should not be confused with appellate power, and a review cannot be sought merely for a fresh hearing or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. The Tribunal cited various Supreme Court decisions to support this position, stating that an error must be self-evident and not require examination or argument to establish.3. Authority to Review Decisions:The Tribunal held that there is no express provision for review under the NCLAT Rules, 2016, and the Review Applicant could not seek the aid of Rule 11, which speaks of inherent powers. The Tribunal also noted that the I&B Code, 2016, does not contain any provision for review, unlike the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal reiterated that it has no jurisdiction to review its decisions unless authorized by statute. The term 'record' in Section 420 of the Companies Act refers to the proceedings of the case, and any error must be a patent error, not a mere wrong decision. The Tribunal concluded that the appropriate course of action for the Review Applicant was to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment.Disposition:The Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs.
TaxTMI 