In the matter of Net 4 India Limited
- CitationI.A. 4167 & 5291-2022 in Company Petition No. (IB) – 409-(PB)-2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may rectify, under Rule 154(1) read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, clerical errors apparent on the face of its own earlier order, and such an application is maintainable within the two-year limitation period. Documents sought to be placed on record in support of an application under Rule 11 may be admitted where the Tribunal finds them relevant to the application, and the Tribunal considers them in deciding it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
I.A/4167/2022 & I.A/5291/2022 IN IB-409/PB/2017 a. Allow the present application; b. Rectify the following clerical errors in the Order dated 20 July 2022: i. By removing any reference to the order dated 17 May 2021 and I.A. No. 223 of 2021 and replacing the same with 7 May Order and paragraph nos. 69 and 70 of the 7 May Order. ii. By rectifying the Order to the extent it mentions "in respect of each of these IAs" and replace the same with "in respect of each of these prayers". iii. By rectifying the Order to the extent it changes "Application IA 2996 of 2020 allowed" to "Application IA 2996 of 2021”. c. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fitand proper in facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. The brief facts as averred by the Applicant for filing the present Application are as follows: i. That by order dated 08.03.2019, the Corporate Debtor was admitted to the corporate· insolvency resolution process ("CIRP") and the Applicant was appointed as the interim resolution professional. The Applicant was later appointed as I.A/4167/2022 & I.A/5291/2022 IN IB-409/PB/2017 the resolution professional of the Corporate Debtor by the committee of creditors ("CoC"). ii. During the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, the Applicant filed non-cooperation application against Mr. Jasjit Singh Sawhney ("Respondent No. 1''.), the ex-promoter-director of the Corporate Debtor seeking necessary directions from this Adjudicating Authority. The Applicant also filed the Avoidance Application, assailing the impugned preferential, undervalued, fraudulent and wrongful transactions, undertaken by the Respondent No. 1 while managing and controlling the business of the Corporate Debtor. iii. That this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 07.05.2021, disposed off the Non-Corporation and Avoidance Applications. iv. Despite the order dated 07.05.2021 and the multiple emails sent by the Applicant seeking compliance of the order dated 07.05.2021, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 failed to comply with the directions of this Adjudicating Authority and continued to flout the order dated 07.05.2021. v. That in light of complete inaction of the Respondent No. 1 and 2, the Applicant filed an Execution Application seeking
I.A/4167/2022 & I.A/5291/2022 IN IB-409/PB/2017 necessary directions from this Adjudicating Authority necessary for timely implementation of the order dated 07.05.2021. vi. That by the Order, this Adjudicating Authority, allowed the Execution Application. However, on pursuing the Order, the Applicant observed that there were certain aspects of the Order which require rectification of clerical errors that may have inadvertently crept in. 3. The Applicant has filed I.A. 5291/2022 filed under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 to file additional documents in I.A. No. 4167 of 2022 in C.P. (IB) No. 409(PB)/2017. 4. We have heard the Applicant and gone through the submissions made by the Applicant. I.A. 5291/2022 for filing additional documents stands allowed. We have considered the documents filed by the Applicant vide the above-mentioned Application. 5. I.A/4167/2022 has been filed for rectification of order dated 20.07.2022. The Application has been filed within the limitation period of 2 years. On a perusal of the order dated 20.07.2022, it appears that there are indeed clerical errors in the order.
I.A/4167/2022 & I.A/5291/2022 IN IB-409/PB/2017
Therefore, the order dated 20.07.2022 stands rectified to the following extent: i. Any reference to the order dated 17 May 2021 and I.A. No. 223 of 2021 shall be construed as reference to order dated 07.05.2021. ii. The line "in respect of each of these IAs” shall be read as "in respect of each of these prayers". iii. The line "Application IA 2996 of 2020 allowed" shall be read as "Application IA 2996 of 2021 allowed”. 6. I.A. 4167/2022 & I.A/5291/2022 stand allowed and accordingly disposed off. File be consigned to records.
Let a copy of order be served to parties.
SD/- SD/- (RAHUL BHATNAGAR) (BACHU VENKAT BALARAM DAS) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
I.A/4167/2022 & I.A/5291/2022 IN IB-409/PB/2017
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