Review jurisdiction is statutory only; NCLAT says concluded findings cannot be reopened without a patent error on record.

Review jurisdiction is strictly statutory and cannot be assumed as an inherent power. The NCLAT explained that Rule 11 preserves only limited inherent powers to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, while section 420(2) of the Companies Act permits only correction of mistakes apparent from the record, not a substantive rehearing. It further noted that an error apparent must be patent and self-evident; disputed account confirmations, journal entries, and reconciliation issues require reappraisal of evidence and therefore fall outside review. Section 152 CPC was also described as limited to clerical or arithmetical corrections.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal had power to review its earlier order in the absence of an express statutory provision; (ii) Whether the Review Applicant had made out any error apparent on the face of the record warranting reconsideration of the merits.

Issue (i): Whether the Appellate Tribunal had power to review its earlier order in the absence of an express statutory provision.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that review is not an inherent power and can be exercised only when conferred by statute, expressly or by necessary implication. Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 preserves inherent powers only to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, and does not authorise reopening concluded findings or re-hearing the matter. Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 permits correction of a mistake apparent from the record, but not a substantive review of a final order. The Tribunal therefore rejected the contention that the application was maintainable as a review petition.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to review the earlier judgment on the grounds urged.

Issue (ii): Whether the Review Applicant had made out any error apparent on the face of the record warranting reconsideration of the merits.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the grounds raised required reappraisal of evidence, including disputed account confirmations, journal entries, and alleged reconciliation of accounts, which lay outside the limited scope of review. An error apparent must be patent, manifest, and self-evident; a long-drawn argument on facts or competing inferences cannot qualify. The Tribunal also reiterated that Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is confined to clerical or arithmetical corrections and cannot be used to modify substantive conclusions. On the facts, no mistake apparent from the record was shown.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that no error apparent from the record was established and the plea was only an attempt to reargue the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The review application was not maintainable in substance, as it sought a rehearing of concluded issues without disclosing any patent error or permissible ground for review.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is strictly statutory and cannot be invoked to revisit findings of fact or to conduct a rehearing in the absence of a patent and self-evident error on the face of the record.

---