TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1073
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Narahari] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Megha Tyagi, Mr. Jaiveer Kant, Mr. Utsav Mukherjee, Mr. Hardik Khatri and Mr. Mehak Khurana, Advocates For the Respondents : Ms. Vaishnavi S. Mungekar and Mr. Rohan Agrawal, Advocates for R-1 ORDER (Virtual Mode) KANTHI NARAHARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Preamble: The present Review Application is filed under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking review of the common Judgment/Final Order dated 28.06.2021 passed by this Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 233 of 2021 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 333 of 2021. Brief Facts: Appellant's Submissions: 2. Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Learned Senior Counsel appeared f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 09.06.2020 during the 9th CoC meeting, the Applicant informed the CoC that an I.A. has been served by DSKL challenging the rejection of its EoI by the RP and members of CoC. The CoC resolved to allow DSKL to participate in the resolution process. Challenging the said decision, the Gangamai Industries and Construction Ltd. filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority and the same was allowed on 01.03.2021. Aggrieved by the said order of the Learned Adjudicating Authority, the applicant herein filed Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 333 of 2021 praying for expungement of the adverse remarks passed against him in the order dated 01.03.2021 of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). 6. The DSKL also filed Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 233 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d observations, and prayed this Bench to allow the Review Application as prayed for. Respondent's Submissions: 10. The Learned Counsel appeared for the Respondent submitted that the Review Application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground that no review powers conferred under the Companies Act, 2013 or in the IBC, 2016. He submits that the entire matter in the Appeals are subject matter of conduct of the Review Applicant and there is no error in the order passed by this Appellate Tribunal. He prayed this Bench to dismiss the Review Application, as it devoid of merit and lack of jurisdiction. Analysis / Appraisal: 11. Heard the Learned Counsel appeared for the respective parties. The present Application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The provision thus read as under: "S.420. Orders of Tribunal: (1) The Tribunal may, after giving the parties to any proceeding before it, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. (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. Provided that no such amendment shall be made in respect of any order against which an appeal has been preferred under this Act." 15. From the above provision of law, the Tribunal may rectify any mistake apparent from the recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is no question to issue a request for resolution plan to DSKL. 47. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that Mr. Pankaj Joshi has failed to explain that the actions are bonafide. It is expected from a Resolution Professional that he must act in a fair and balanced manner without getting influenced by the conflicting interest of the partis. In the present case, Mr. Pankaj Joshi suppressed material facts and misguided the members of CoC to achieve the desired decision in favour of DSKL. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the adverse remarks and observations made in the Para 54 of the impugned order are not baseless and uncalled for and on the other hand, for appreciating the materia....