Rectification jurisdiction under Section 420(2) cannot be used to reopen revival or introduce additional evidence without due diligence.

Rectification jurisdiction under Section 420(2) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and must be invoked within the prescribed two-year period. An application seeking receipt of additional documents and reconsideration of revival of the company was held not maintainable because the liberty granted by the High Court was limited to amendment or rectification of the earlier order, not a fresh attempt to enlarge the proceedings. The request to adduce additional evidence was also declined, as such evidence cannot be used to fill lacunae or reopen revival without showing due diligence. The dismissal of the application was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application seeking receipt of additional documents and reconsideration of revival of the company was maintainable in view of the liberty granted by the High Court and the two-year limit for rectification under the Companies Act, 2013; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to adduce additional evidence to support revival of the company.

Issue (i): Whether the application seeking receipt of additional documents and reconsideration of revival of the company was maintainable in view of the liberty granted by the High Court and the two-year limit for rectification under the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The liberty granted by the High Court was confined to moving the Tribunal for amendment/rectification of the earlier order, not for enlarging the scope of proceedings into a fresh request for receiving additional documents and reviving the company. Rectification under Section 420(2) is limited to mistakes apparent from the record and must be sought within two years. The Tribunal found that the application was filed after expiry of that period, and the relief sought went beyond the permissible scope of rectification.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and the finding is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to adduce additional evidence to support revival of the company.

Analysis: The power to receive additional evidence is discretionary and cannot be used to fill lacunae or cure a lack of due diligence. The documents relied upon were not shown to have been unavailable earlier despite due diligence, and the earlier company petition had already been decided on the material then available. The Tribunal therefore declined to permit additional evidence or to reopen the merits of revival.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to adduce additional evidence, and this issue is decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the application was upheld, and the appeal failed on both maintainability and merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction under Section 420(2) is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be invoked after limitation or to introduce additional evidence that could have been produced earlier with due diligence.

---