TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 801
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on the face of record' leading to an error also. Review Applicant's Contentions 2. It is the stand of the Review Applicant that an error in the judgement in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 can be ascertained from the following dates November,(1) 2012, the date of default of the original loan of Karnataka Bank which was later assigned to ARC/Respondent No. 1 (2) 9.6.2016, the acceptance of loan assignment by the 'Corporate Debtor'. (3) 6.9.2018, the application filed u/s 7 of the 'I&B' Code filed before the Adjudicating Authority ('National Company Law Tribunal'), Bengaluru. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant contends that the application under Section 7 of the 'I&B' Code filed before the Adjudicating Authority ('NCLT'), Bengaluru was beyond the period of limitation and this plea was raised on the basis of simple admitted facts. However, this Appellate Tribunal held that the said application u/s 7 of the 'I&B' Code is within the limitation period. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant takes a stand that the 1st Respondent / ARC filed the Section 7 application before the Adjudicating Authority on 05.09.2018 and that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... barred, as per law laid down in the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave' V. 'Asset Reconstruction Company (India) and Anr.' (Civil Appeal No. 4952 of 2019) relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court 'B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd.' V. 'Parag Gupta and Associates', 2018 SCC online Supreme Court 1921. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant submits that there is nothing on record after first default in November, 2012 anything happened till October, 2015 i.e. within three years. Further, there is no pleading in application u/s 7 of the 'I&B' Code and that no application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 claiming condonation of delay with averments of acknowledgement or receipt of fresh disbursal of loan was filed. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant contends that in Review Application No. 2 of 2018 (Dr. M.A.S. Subramanian & Ors.) Vs. 'T.S. Shivakumar & Ors.' this Tribunal while dealing with the issue of maintainability of 'Review Jurisdiction' referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax', Rajkot V. 'Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ks of different towers in the project can be completed in 90 days. The tentative dates were given block-wise and Tower wise. c. The details of receivables from customers given Tower wise to show the solvency of company. d. 84 flats are already registered in block-A&B and 300 flats are ready for registration." 15. This Tribunal has heard the Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant / Appellant at the stage of admission of the 'Review Application' and noticed the contentions advanced. Legal Position of Review 16. It is to be pointed out that the power to 'Review' is not an 'inherent power' and must be showered by Law either expressly or by necessary implication. As a matter of fact, the power to 'review' is a creation of statute. Indeed, a 'Review Jurisdiction' cannot be pressed into service as an 'Appellate Jurisdiction'. Moreover, the 'Power of Review' is not to be confused with an Appellate power. A 'review' cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or the correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. Some Decisions 17. Be it noted, that no error can be said to be an error 'on the face of record' if it is not self-evident and requires an e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2016 speaks of 'inherent powers' and the same is as follows: - "Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Appellate Tribunal to make such orders or give directions as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Appellate Tribunal". Companies Act 22. Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 reads as under: - "(2) The Tribunal may, at any time within two years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it and shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties:- 11 Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 Provided that no such amendment shall be made in respect of any order against which an appeal has been preferred under this Act." Discussions 23. A mere perusal of the 'NCLAT' Rules, 2016 unerringly point out that there is no express provision for 'Review' and further that the Review Applicant / Appellant cannot seek the aid of Rule 11 of the 'NCLAT' Rules, 2016 which speaks of inherent powers. Also, that the Review Appl....