Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Jaitnder Pal Singh Hanjra Through Its ... vs Vivek Raheja Resolution Professional ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal25 April 2023Ashok Bhushan

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