Jaitnder Pal Singh Hanjra Through Its ... vs Vivek Raheja Resolution Professional ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 199 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's power to rectify an order under its rectification jurisdiction does not extend to recalling the order in its entirety; a rectification application seeking only corrections cannot ground the recall of an earlier order that has already been acted upon. Where a plan has already been submitted pursuant to an order, there is no occasion to recall that order, and an order recalling it on a rectification application is set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 199 of 2023 IN THE MATTER OF: Jatinder Pal Singh Hanjra ...Appellant Versus Vivek Raheja Resolution Professional of J.P. Engineers Private limited & Anr. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Advocates For Respondents: Mr. K.D. Sharma, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Sandeep Bhuraria, Mr. Monish Surendran, Mr. Arinjay Singh, Advocates for R-2.
ORDER
25.04.2023: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by
the Adjudicating Authority. While entertaining the appeal on 21.02.2023, we
passed the following order:-
"Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that
on an Application filed by the Appellant, order was
passed on 16th January, 2023 permitting the plan
submitted by the Appellant to be considered in
pursuance of which Committee of Creditors proceeded
to consider the Plan. In the meantime, an Application
was filed by the Resolution Professional for
rectification of the Order dated 16th January, 2023, on
which application, an order has been passed on 08th
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 199 of 2023 1 February, 2023 recalling earlier order dated
16.01.2023 whereas there was no prayer of the recall
of the Order and what was asked for only rectification.
It is submitted that CoC has proceeded to consider the
plan. It is further submitted that an application for
liquidation is pending consideration before the
Adjudicating Authority.
2. Issue notice to the Respondent No. 2 through
Speed Post as well as Email. Requisites along with
process fee, if not filed, be filed within two days.
Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1
accepts notice. Appellant may also serve notice to
Respondent No. 2.
3. List this Appeal on 20th March, 2023.
In the meantime, the Adjudicating Authority
shall adjourn the Application for Liquidation".
2. Learned Counsel for the Union Bank of India having 86% vote share
submits that Union Bank has no objection if the plan submitted by the Appellant
is considered.
3. Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that plan has already been
submitted in pursuance of the order dated 16.01.2023 on 30.01.2023. Hence,
there was no occasion to recall the order dated 16.01.2023. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 199 of 2023 2
4. In view of the statement made by the Learned Counsel for the parties, we
are of the view that plan having already been submitted there was no occasion
for recall of the order 16.01.2023, moreover, only prayer made was to make
certain corrections in the order dated 16.01.2023. The order dated 08.02.2023
in so far as it recall the order dated 16.01.2023 is set aside.
The Appeal is disposed of
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
ss/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 199 of 2023 3
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