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>Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review orders under Companies Act; Applicant's arguments rejected; common judgment upheld.</h1> <h3>Dwarkadhish Sakhar Kharkhana Limited Versus Pankaj Joshi Resolution Professional of KGS Sugar & Infra Corporation Ltd., Gangamai Industries & Construction Ltd. And Pankaj Joshi Resolution Professional of KGS Sugar & Infra Corporation Ltd. Versus Gangamai Industries & Construction Limited</h3> Dwarkadhish Sakhar Kharkhana Limited Versus Pankaj Joshi Resolution Professional of KGS Sugar & Infra Corporation Ltd., Gangamai Industries & Construction ... Issues:1. Review of common judgment/final order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the Appellate Tribunal in two Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) cases.2. Allegations of suppression of facts by the Review Applicant during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to review its own orders under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.Issue 1: Review of JudgmentThe Review Application was filed seeking a review of the common judgment/final order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the Appellate Tribunal in two Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) cases. The appeals were against the order of the Adjudicating Authority allowing the application challenging the decision of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to accept the Expression of Interest (EoI) of a party. The Tribunal heard the parties and passed a common order after affording them the opportunity to present their case.Issue 2: Allegations of Suppression of FactsThe Review Applicant was accused of suppressing facts during the CIRP, leading to adverse remarks against him in the common impugned order. The Applicant contended that the adverse observations made were errors apparent from the record and sought expungement of the remarks. The Applicant's counsel argued that the record clearly showed that the Applicant had not suppressed information and had communicated his decisions transparently to the CoC and other relevant parties. However, the Respondent's counsel opposed the Review Application, claiming it was not maintainable and lacked merit and jurisdiction.Issue 3: Jurisdiction to Review OrdersThe Tribunal analyzed the jurisdiction to review its own orders under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. While the provision allows rectification of mistakes apparent from the record, it does not confer the power of review. The Tribunal examined the adverse remarks against the Review Applicant in the common order and concluded that they were based on the material available before the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized that it did not have the authority to review its own orders and dismissed the Review Application, stating it was without jurisdiction under the law.In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the Review Application as it lacked the jurisdiction to review its own orders under the Companies Act, 2013. The Applicant's contentions of errors in the adverse remarks were not accepted, and the Tribunal upheld the common judgment passed in the two Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
