In the aforementioned case, the appellant filed an application pursuant to Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 seeking a review of the NCLAT judgement dated February 7, 2020 on the grounds that the NCLAT (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Tribunal") made an error in the judgement by ignoring various documents filed by both parties, including the Deed of Guarantee executed by Chamber Constructions in favour of the Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"). Due to this error, the Corporate Debtor does not owe anything legally because the Bank has already made a claim for the same amount in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Guarantor, M/s Chamber Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
In the instant case titled Anubhav Anilkumar Agarwal Vs Bank of India & Anr the issue raised for clarification before the NCLAT was:
Whether the section can be revisited or revised?
With regard to this issue, The Appellate Tribunal cites Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, and notes that the review authority, which cannot be used unless granted, has not been specifically granted to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal may only use the authority granted to it by Rule 11 to rectify errors. Due to the appellant tribunal, Rule 11's inherent powers cannot be expanded to include reviewing decisions and substituting one's own opinion. The inherent power cannot be used in a way that would be equivalent to appealing the judgments made after considering the facts.
Additionally, the Appellate Tribunal clarifies the issue by citing section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 and notes that the ability to correct a mistake that is obvious from the record cannot be interpreted as giving the Appellate Tribunal the authority to reappraise the evidence in the record and substitute a finding. This would be considered usurping the authority granted to an appeals court. Even though the factual conclusion may be incorrect, if it was reached after careful consideration of the evidence, it would be illegal to revisit the facts and reach a new conclusion, which would change the decision's merits. Therefore, using natural powers would not be justified by misreading the evidence or material or drawing the incorrect inference from it, both of which require the use of the mind.
The Court categorically stated that,
"The last three paragraphs of the aforesaid letter show that to save the Bank Account from getting NPA and citing the good reputation and goodwill, the 'Corporate Debtor' agreed to pay the amount and acknowledged the dues."