Anand Kumar & Ors vs Usha Kumar & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 193 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal has no power to review or recall its own order except by exercising inherent power under Rule 11 or Rule 155 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. Under Rule 155, a Tribunal may correct an error in its order only where the error is noticed within 30 days from the date of the original order, and the correction is made to do substantial justice between the parties; an application made beyond that period cannot be entertained for that purpose.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Anand Kumar & Ors. . . .Appellants
Vs.
Usha Kumar & Ors. ... Respondents
Present: For Appellants: - Mr. Varun Singh and Gaurav Nain, Advocate.
For Respondents:-
ORDER
18.07.2017 In a petition filed under section 420 read with Section
1OF (m) and 1OF (n) of the Companies Act, 1956 an Interlocutory
Application No. 72 of 2015 was preferred by Respondents wherein an
interim order was passed on 6th March, 2017. After more than three
months, the appellants filed another Interlocutory Application No.236 of
2017 to amend the interim order on the ground of error occurred in the
order.
2. Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as
Tribunal) Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, having found no error in the order
dated 6th March, 2017 and taking into consideration the admitted
position that the company is not functioning well, dismissed the
Interlocutory Application No.236 of 2017.
Contd/-
-2-
3. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and perused the order.
In absence of any illegality or perversity in the order, we also find no
ground to interfere with the impugned order. At this stage, we may point
out that Tribunal has no power to review or recall its order, except by
exercising inherent power either under Rule 11 or Rule 155 of the NCLT
Rules, 2016. As per Rule 155, where error, if any, is noticed the Tribunal
may correct it within 30 days from the date of original order to do
substantial justice to the parties. First of all, there is no error in the
interim order passed on 6th March, 2017 and this apart, we find that the
application was filed after 90 days which is beyond 30 days. As the main
company petition is pending consideration, no interference is called for.
4. For the reasons aforesaid, we dismiss the appeal and direct the parties
to co-operate with the Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the Company
Petition, as in terms of Section 422, the Tribunal is required to dispose of the
matter preferably within three months.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no
order as to cost.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Balvinder Singh) Member(Technical) ar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free