- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Deepak Kumar v. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd.
Structured Summary of the Opinion — Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019
Factual and Procedural Background
The Review Applicant/Appellant filed Review Application No. 09 of 2020 under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 seeking review of the judgement dated 05.03.2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019. The review sought correction of an alleged error apparent on the face of the record.
The factual timeline relied upon by the Review Applicant, as set out in the opinion, includes: (1) November 1, 2012 — alleged date of default of the original loan by Karnataka Bank (later assigned to ARC/Respondent No. 1); (2) June 9, 2016 — alleged acceptance of loan assignment by the Corporate Debtor; and (3) September 6, 2018 — application under Section 7 of the I&B Code filed before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), Bengaluru.
The Review Applicant's core contention was that the Section 7 application was time-barred (beyond the three-year limitation period) when measured from the date of default recorded in Form No.1 (1.11.2012). The Tribunal in the underlying appeal had held the Section 7 application to be within limitation on the basis of acknowledgment(s) arising after 2012 (notably the 9.6.2016 document).
The Tribunal heard the appeal on 17.02.2020, reserved judgement, and pronounced the judgement on 05.03.2020 dismissing the appeal. The Review Application was heard and disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal in an order dated 17th September, 2020.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the judgement dated 05.03.2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 contains any mistake apparent on the face of record within the meaning of Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 that would justify review by this Tribunal.
- Whether Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 (inherent powers) or Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 can be invoked by the Appellate Tribunal to review or rectify its judgement in matters arising under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
- Whether signing of a subsequent loan agreement, assignment or any alleged acknowledgement after the expiry of three years from the date of default can extend the limitation period for a time-barred loan for purposes of filing a Section 7 application under the I&B Code.
Arguments of the Parties
Review Applicant / Appellant's Arguments
- The date of default is 1.11.2012 (as recorded in Form No.1 filed by the 1st Respondent/ARC) and thus the three-year limitation period expired on 31.10.2015; the Section 7 application filed on 06.09.2018 was therefore time-barred.
- The Tribunal wrongly relied upon a later date (9.6.2016) — an acceptance of loan assignment and a new financing arrangement — to treat the Section 7 application as within limitation; reliance on such later acknowledgements or a new loan cannot revive or extend limitation for the earlier, time-barred loan.
- The contents of Form No.1 (Column II — date of occurrence of default) are statutory and should determine the date of default (citing Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave and related authorities); in the present case Form No.1 recorded 1.11.2012 but this was not considered appropriately.
- No pleading under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay or alleging any legally effective acknowledgement/fresh disbursal within three years was filed; there was nothing on record between November 2012 and October 2015 to interrupt limitation.
- The Tribunal erred by applying Section 18 of the Limitation Act to an alleged acknowledgement beyond the three-year period from the date of default, which the Review Applicant contended cannot qualify as an acknowledgement in law.
- The Review Applicant also relied on factual assertions (project solvency, funds available, progress of construction, registered flats, and readiness to complete remaining work) and earlier interim orders (30.09.2019, 13.11.2019 and 04.12.2019) which, it is contended, were not taken into account in the judgement dated 05.03.2020.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondents' legal arguments in opposition to the Review Application within the provided text.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Vasdeo R. Bhojwani V. Abhyudya Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Anr. (vide Civil Appeal No. 11020 of 2018 reported in 2019) 9 SCC page 158 | Authority relied upon by the Review Applicant concerning interpretation of the date of default as recorded in Form No.1. | Cited in the opinion as a legal basis relied upon by the Review Applicant to assert that the date of default recorded in Form No.1 is definitive. |
| Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave V. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 4952 of 2019) | Principle that the contents of Form No.1 (Column II — date of occurrence of default) statutorily annexed to Section 7 application determine the date of default. | Noted in the opinion as a principal authority relied upon by the Review Applicant to argue that time runs from the date recorded in Form No.1 (1.11.2012). |
| B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. V. Parag Gupta and Associates, 2018 SCC online Supreme Court 1921 | Authority relied on in conjunction with Gaurav Dave regarding formulation of limitation/acknowledgement issues in insolvency proceedings. | Cited by the Review Applicant and mentioned in the opinion as part of the authorities relied upon for the proposition that acknowledgement/new loan cannot revive a time-barred claim. |
| Rajkot V. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (reported in 2008) 14 SCC | Principles concerning the maintainability of review jurisdiction and the limits of review. | Referred to in the opinion when discussing prior Tribunal jurisprudence on the scope of review jurisdiction and the need for a manifest/self-evident error to sustain review. |
| Delhi Administration V. Gurdip Singh reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court page 3737 | Holds that no error can be said to be an error on the face of record if it is not self-evident and requires examination or argument. | Applied by the Tribunal to emphasise that review is permissible only for patent errors apparent on the face of the record and not for errors requiring re-examination. |
| M.A. Murthy V. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2003 7 SCC at page 517 | Principle that review erases previous judgment and operates as law from inception; and that review cannot be used merely to correct an erroneous decision unless statutory criteria are met. | Cited to underline the constitutional and legal gravity of review jurisdiction and the narrow circumstances in which review lies. |
| Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2006) 1 SCC page 509 | Where two views are possible on a point, the possibility of differing views is not a ground for review. | Applied to state that the mere availability of an alternative view would not justify review of the Tribunal's decision. |
| Fernandes V. Ranga Nayakulu AIR 1953 Mad. 236 | Authority on the limited circumstances in which a court or tribunal can exercise review/inherent jurisdiction. | Referenced in relation to the limits of inherent jurisdiction and review in judicial decision-making. |
| Malappa V. Alagiri AIR 1931 Mad. 79 | Principle that inherent jurisdiction must be exercised subject to the applicable procedural code and cannot be invoked where specific statutory provisions apply. | Mentioned to support the view that inherent powers must yield to specific statutory mechanisms when those exist. |
| M Gadiya V. M.K. Sewak AIR 1977 Mad. 140 | Authority that a court has no inherent jurisdiction to reconsider or review an order unless authorised by statute. | Cited to support the Tribunal's conclusion that it cannot exercise inherent power to perform acts forbidden by law. |
| Commissioner of Income Tax V. East India Cotton Association Ltd. (1984) 149 ITR pg. 274 | Where two views are possible, the order cannot be rectified as a mistake apparent from the record. | Invoked to reinforce that an arguable or debatable decision does not amount to a mistake apparent on the face of the record for purposes of review. |
| Lily Thomas V. Union of India reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court pg. 1650 | Principle that power to rectify or amend an order is exercised to remove mistakes without disturbing the finality of the order. | Referred to in the opinion to explain the limited nature of correction/amendment powers and the importance of preserving finality. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Tribunal's analysis proceeded in several focused steps, each tied to statutory text and precedent quoted in the opinion:
- The Tribunal examined the statutory scheme and rules relevant to review. It observed that the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not contain any provision expressly authorising review, and that the NCLAT Rules, 2016 contain no substantive rule expressly conferring a power of review.
- The Tribunal analysed Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 (which speaks of inherent powers) and concluded that Rule 11 is not a substantive provision that confers jurisdiction to review matters that statutory provisions do not permit; inherent powers cannot be used to do an act expressly forbidden by law.
- The Tribunal considered Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 (which permits amendment of orders to rectify mistakes apparent from the record within two years) but held that the power under Section 420(2) is a creature of the Companies Act and cannot be invoked by the Tribunal to exercise review powers in matters arising under the I&B Code where that Code contains no analogous provision.
- The Tribunal applied settled principles from the precedents cited: a review is limited to correction of patent, self-evident errors apparent on the face of record; matters that require re-examination of evidence, arguments or debatable points are impermissible on review. Where two views are possible, review is not warranted.
- Applying those principles to the present case, the Tribunal found that the questions raised by the Review Applicant (including reliance on Form No.1, the date of default, and whether later documents/acknowledgements could revive limitation) required examination of record, factual appraisal and argument — matters going beyond a patent error apparent on the face of the record.
- Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that rehearing or correction of the judgement dated 05.03.2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 was impermissible in law; the appropriate remedy for the Review Applicant was to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court against that judgement.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 is dismissed.
Implications and consequences:
- The Review Application was found devoid of merits and dismissed; no costs were awarded.
- The Tribunal reiterated the limited scope of review under Rule 11 (inherent powers) and under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, stressing that where the I&B Code contains no provision for review, the Tribunal cannot enlarge its jurisdiction by invoking Rule 11 or by analogy to Section 420(2).
- The Tribunal directed (by implication of its reasoning) that the appropriate avenue for contesting the judgement of 05.03.2020 is to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court; the Tribunal refused to re-open factual or legal issues that required re-examination beyond a patent error on the face of the record.
- No broader precedent was created beyond the Tribunal's application of established principles limiting review; the decision's direct effect is to deny the Review Applicant relief and to maintain finality of the earlier judgment dated 05.03.2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019.
Order signed by: [Justice Venugopal M.] Member (Judicial), [V.P. Singh] Member (Technical), [Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical). New Delhi, 17th September, 2020.
Venugopal M. J Introduction The Review Applicant /Appellant has projected the instant Review Application No. 09 of 2020 (under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013) r/w Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016) seeking to Review the judgement dated 05.03.2020 in in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 for correction of an error apparent on the face of record leading to an error also. Review Applicants 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
3 Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 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 the admitted position is there is a gap of five years and ten months. Moreover, it is represented on behalf of the Review Applicant that in Form No. 1 filed by the 1st Respondent / ARC before the Adjudicating Authority November 2012 is categorically written in the date of default column and, therefore, there is no scope for interpretation in respect of the date of default, in view of the law laid down in Vasdeo R. Bhojwani V. Abhyudya Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Anr. (vide Civil Appeal No. 11020 of 2018 reported in 2019) 9 SCC page 158.
5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant emphatically comes out with a plea that to bring the application u/s 7 of the I&B Code within the period of limitation, the Tribunal had relied upon the acknowledgment from one subsequent date i.e. 9.6.2016 as on this date an Acceptance of Loan Assignment Agreement was signed with a new loan agreement for fresh financing of Rs. 5 crores was signed by the Corporate Debtor and its Directors including the Appellant. Besides this, some payments were made but in the new loan, as per the averments of the Respondents. But these payments cannot save the time barred loan, as these are beyond the period of Limitation.
4 Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019
6. Expatiating his contention, the Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant submits that signing of a new loan agreement or an assignment agreement beyond the period of three years, from the date of default of earlier loan cannot extend the period of limitation of a time barred loan.
7. Added further, it is the case of Review Applicant that the date of default is 1.11.2012 and the three-year period ended on 31.10.2015. Further, in the judgement of Honble Supreme Court in Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave V. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 4952 of 2019) it is held that the contents of Form 1 that has statutorily to be annexed to the Section 7 application in Column II, which was the date of occurrence of default 1.11.2012. In the instant case, according to the Review Applicant, the default date was filled up in form 1 as 1.11.2012 and that the contents of Form
1 was not considered.
8. The forceful contention advanced on behalf of the Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant is that in the present case time begins to run from 1.11.2012 as a result of which the application is time barred, as per law laid down in the decisions of Honble Supreme Court in Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave V. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 4952 of 2019) relying upon the decision of Honble Supreme Court B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. V. Parag Gupta and Associates, 2018 SCC online Supreme Court 1921.
5 Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019
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 Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot V. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (reported in 2008) 14 SCC at page
171 and that it was discussed and held that any manifest and self-evident error in the judgement which is passed and need not travel beyond record to see whether the judgement is correct or not. Such aspects beyond record cannot be gone into and considered on the strength of Section 420(2) of the Companies Act.
11. The Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant takes a plea that in the instant case, for none of the errors, this Tribunal has to travel beyond the record, as all apparent on the record and that the date of default was November, 2012 and that the date of filing of an application u/s 7 of the Code was on 06.09.2018.
6 Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019
12. The Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant puts forth legal argument that no amount of new loan can extend the limitation of old loan and further this Tribunal had applied Section 18 of the Limitation Act to an alleged acknowledgement which is beyond three years from the date of default and this cannot be an acknowledgement in the eye of Law and further that this is the self-evident error from the fact of record and that no other records need to be seen.
13. The Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant submits that the Default in I&B Code has a specific meaning as default of loan demanded by the Bank and it cannot be equated with new loan demand. Further, the new loan balance is of Rs. 2.5 crores and had it been demanded, it could have been paid then and there as debtor has this amount available with it from the day one. Also that, the 90-95% of the project is complete and the Resolution Professional has not done anything and that the Corporate Debtor is heading towards Insolvency and that the Promoters are ready to arrange the fund and to complete the project within 3-6 months based on different towers.
14. The Learned Counsel for the Review Applicant/Appellant contends the facts which formed the part of the order dated 30.09.2019, 30.11.2019, 4.12.2019 passed by this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848
7 Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 of 2019 were not considered at all in the judgement dated 05.03.2020 and the said facts run as under:- a. That there are sufficient funds to complete the project. At present a sum of Rs. 11 Crore is lying with bank, which is sufficient to complete the Block-A&B of the project. b. Applicant filed affidavit that remaining works 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.
8 Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 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 examination or argument to establish it as per decision of Honble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration V. Gurdip Singh reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court page 3737. In reality, Review erases the previous judgement and hence, operates as Law from the inception as per decision of Honble Supreme Court M.A. Murthy V. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2003 7 SCC at page 517. Even for correcting an erroneous decision Review does not lie.
18. It is an axiomatic principle in Law that an error contemplated must be such which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. The term Review judicially and literally means re- examination or re-consideration. Under the guise of Review the Tribunal would not rehear the parties both on facts and Law. If two views are possible
9 Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 on the point involved, the same is not a ground for Review as per decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2006) 1 SCC page 509. A re-appraisal of evidence on record for finding out an error would amount to an exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction which is impermissible in Law.
19. It is significant to point out that a Court or Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review its decision duly pronounced. It can do so only if it authorised by statute as per decision Fernandes V. Ranga Nayakulu AIR 1953 Mad. 236. An inherent jurisdiction must be exercised subject to the Rule if the Code does contain specific provisions that would meet the necessities of the case in question, such provisions should be followed, and the inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked as per decision Malappa V. Alagiri AIR 1931 Mad.
79. Further, the Court has no inherent jurisdiction to reconsider or review an order as per decision M Gadiya V. M.K. Sewak AIR 1977 Mad. 140. I&B Code, 2016 and Companies Act, 2013
20. Section 5 Definition (1) of the I&B Code speaks of Adjudicating Authority for the purpose of this part (part II), meaning National Company Law Tribunal constituted under Section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013). Section
2 Definition (4) of the Companies Act, 2013 speaks of Appellate Tribunal meaning the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 410.
10 Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 Inherent Powers
21. Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 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 Applicant cannot seek umbrage under section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 for filing the Review Application on the purported ground of rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, within two years from the date of order passed, in the considered opinion of this Court.
24. As far as the Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 is concerned, the same was heard on 17.02.2020, arguments were advanced on both sides and that the Judgement was reserved. In fact, the judgement was pronounced on 05.03.2020 whereby and whereunder the Appeal was found to be bereft of any merits and the same was dismissed without costs. As such, the counter plea taken by the Review Applicant/Appellant that earlier orders dated 30.09.2019, 13.11.2019 and 04.12.2019 were not taken into account by this Tribunal while disposing of main appeal sans merits and it is an otiose one.
12 Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019
25. It cannot be gainsaid that I&B Code, 2016 does not contain any provision for Review. Also, it does not contain any provision similar to Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013. In this connection, a mere perusal of the National Company Law Appellate Rule 2016 unerringly point out that there is no express Rule for Review. There can be no two opinion of a prime fact that Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 is not a substantive Rule which confers any power or jurisdiction on the Tribunal. A Tribunal has no power to perform an act which is forbidden by Law.
26. The term record in Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 means record to the proceedings of the case. An error must be a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. Where two views are possible and the matter is debatable, the order cannot be rectified by mistake apparent from record as per decision Commissioner of Income Tax V. East India Cotton Association Ltd. (1984)
149 ITR pg. 274. When there is no mistake apparent from the record in the judgement delivered by a Tribunal, then an application for review filed by the concerned Applicant cannot be construed to be one under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act or under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016.
27. It is worth for this Tribunal to recollect and recall the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Lily Thomas V. Union of India reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court pg. 1650 at spl. Pg. 1665 wherein it is held that the power to
13 Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 rectify or amend the order is exercised to remove the mistake without disturbing its finality.
28. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that Re-hearing and correction of the judgement sought for in the present Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 dated 05.03.2020 is impermissible in Law and in the instant case cemented on the attendant facts and circumstances and on an overall evaluation of the same in a real and proper perspective, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the appropriate course of action open to the Review Applicant / Appellant is to approach the Honble Supreme Court against the judgement in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 dated 05.03.2020 passed by this Tribunal. Viewed in that perspective, the Review Application is devoid of merits. Disposition In fine, the Review Application No. 09 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 848 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs. [Justice Venugopal. M] Member (Judicial) [V.P. Singh] Member (Technical) [Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) NEW DELHI 17th September, 2020
Alert