Insolvency review power is limited: final orders cannot be reopened absent express statute, and corporate assets may be traced for liquidation.

An adjudicating authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot review a final order unless express statutory power exists; Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules and Section 420 of the Companies Act do not create a general review jurisdiction. Mere disagreement with the earlier view, or allegations requiring reconsideration on merits, cannot be corrected as review or rectification absent clerical, arithmetical, or procedural error. Where forensic material showed that property was acquired from corporate debtor funds, the loan was repaid through the corporate debtor's accounts, and the deed stood in an ex-director's name, the asset could be treated as part of the corporate estate. Attachment and auction directions in liquidation were therefore maintained, with no patent jurisdictional error or infirmity shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority could review its own order dated 20.12.2019 under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 or Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013. (ii) Whether the order attaching the property and directing its public auction suffered from any error apparent on the record, lack of jurisdiction, or other legal infirmity warranting interference.

Issue (i): Whether the Adjudicating Authority could review its own order dated 20.12.2019 under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 or Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The power of review is not inherent and, in the absence of an express provision in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority could not reopen its final order merely because a different view was suggested. The record disclosed no clerical, arithmetical, or procedural mistake that could be corrected as a rectification. The alleged grievances required reconsideration of the merits and therefore lay outside the scope of review or rectification jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The request for review or rectification was rightly rejected and the appellants were not entitled to relief on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the order attaching the property and directing its public auction suffered from any error apparent on the record, lack of jurisdiction, or other legal infirmity warranting interference.

Analysis: The property was found to have been acquired through funds of the corporate debtor, with the loan repaid from the corporate debtor's accounts, while the sale deed stood in the name of the ex-director. On the forensic material, the Adjudicating Authority treated the asset as belonging to the corporate debtor and acted within the liquidation framework to protect and realise the estate. The objections based on limitation, benami law, and alleged lack of jurisdiction did not disclose a patent error, and the transaction fell within the ambit of fraudulent conduct addressed by the Code.

Conclusion: The attachment and consequential directions were upheld and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were sustained in full, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In insolvency proceedings, an adjudicating authority cannot exercise review jurisdiction in the absence of express statutory power, and where evidence shows that an asset was purchased from corporate debtor funds but registered in the name of an ex-director, the tribunal may treat it as a corporate asset and direct attachment and realisation in liquidation.

---