Tribunal Upholds Financial Creditor's Application, Rejects Review Request

The Tribunal held that the application under Section 7 of the I&B Code by the Financial Creditor was not barred by limitation. The dictum of law in "Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agrawal Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd." was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal dismissed the application for review under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016, stating that it lacked the power to review its decisions beyond correcting arithmetical or typographical errors. The Tribunal emphasized that review powers cannot be used for reevaluating evidence or changing factual findings, ultimately denying the review application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application under Section 7 of the I&B Code by the Financial Creditor was barred by limitation.
2. Whether the dictum of law laid down in "Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agrawal Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd." was applicable.
3. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 7th February, 2020.
4. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has the power to review its decisions under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation of Application under Section 7 of I&B Code:
The judgment initially addressed the issue of whether the application filed under Section 7 of the I&B Code by the Financial Creditor, Bank of India, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against RNA Corporation Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), who was the Guarantor, was barred by limitation. The Tribunal concluded that the application was not barred by limitation.

2. Applicability of "Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agrawal Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd.":
The Tribunal also considered whether the case of the appellant was attracted by the dictum of law laid down in "Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agrawal Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd." It was held that the dictum of law laid down in the aforementioned case was not applicable to the appellant's case.

3. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:
The appellant filed an application under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 to review the judgment dated 7th February, 2020, arguing that the Tribunal made an inadvertent error in Para 14 of the judgment by ignoring various documents, including the Deed of Guarantee executed by Chamber Constructions in favor of Respondent No. 1 on 9th December, 2013. The appellant contended that this error led to a situation where there was no debt due payable in law by the Corporate Debtor, as the same amount was claimed in the CIRP of the Guarantor, M/s Chamber Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The appellant argued that the Tribunal should not have upheld the order admitting the application under Section 7 for the same claim and default, as it would result in claiming the same amount twice.

4. Power of Review under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016:
The Tribunal examined whether it had the power to review its decisions under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016. It was argued by the respondents that the Tribunal does not have the power to review its decisions beyond correcting arithmetical or typographical errors. The Tribunal referred to the inherent powers under Rule 11, which are intended to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the Tribunal's process. However, it was emphasized that these powers do not extend to reappreciating evidence or substituting findings of fact. The Tribunal cited the case "Lily Thomas and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors." to underline that review powers cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and that mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that it does not have the power to review its decisions under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016, as the power of review is not an inherent power and cannot be exercised unless specifically conferred. The Tribunal noted that the error must be apparent on the face of the record and self-evident. It cannot involve reappraisal of evidence or substitution of findings. The application to review the judgment was dismissed, as it sought to reexamine findings and substitute conclusions, which is beyond the scope of Rule 11.

---