Consent order on resolution professional fees could not be reopened absent clerical error or apparent mistake.

An application to alter an order fixing the resolution professional's fees and expenses was held not maintainable because the original order had been passed with consent of both sides. The Tribunal found that no objection was raised when the order was dictated, and the later challenge to the proxy counsel's authority was an afterthought. It also held that the request did not amount to correction of a clerical or arithmetical error, nor did it disclose a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The application seeking interference with the consent order was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application seeking alteration of the order fixing the resolution professional's fees and expenses was maintainable and whether any interference was warranted with the consent order.

Analysis: The application rested on the plea that the fee and expenses fixed for a period of 39 days were excessive and that the earlier order had been recorded on the basis of consent given by a proxy counsel without authority. The Tribunal noted that the order had been passed with the consent of both sides, that no objection was raised when the order was dictated, and that the challenge to the authority of counsel was an afterthought. It also found no basis for treating the application as one for correction of any clerical or arithmetical error or for invoking a provision intended to cure a mistake apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable for interference with the consent order and was rejected.

---