Shubham Steel Industries vs Prime Gold -Sail Jvc Limited

In the matter of: Shubham Steel Industries ....Appellant Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Shubham Agarwal Vs. Prime Gold Sail JVC Ltd. ...Respondent For Appellant Mr. Karan Valecha, Mr. Naman Tandon, Advocates. For Respondent

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

07.03.2024: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench (Court-II) by which order the Adjudicating Authority has directed deletion of paragraphs 9 and 10. The order dated 12.02.2024 is as follows:-

"IA-484/2024: Counsels for the parties are ad idem that para 9 & 10 of the order could capture such facts which are not borne out of the record. It seems that while uploading the order using the format of same other case, the Stenographer committed mistake and omitted to delete the facts of the case, the layout/formatting of which was used to set the order. The counsels for the parties agree that except the factual position that the facts from different case could creep into the order, there is no other factual error from para 11 onwards, where this Adjudicating Authority has taken note of the facts of the present case and has recorded finding regarding its decision. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the order has already been challenged in appeal, thus the present petition should not be entertained. We are conscious that when appeal preferred against an order is allowed, 2

the Court or Tribunal should not review its order. In the present case once counsels for the parties are ad idem that by way of clerical mistake, in the draft of the order, the para 9 & 10 could be inserted from some other case, it would be proper and magnanimous for us to rectify the order dated 14.03.2023. We are not interfering with the merits of the order challenged before Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, in any manner. In the wake, para 9 & 10 are directed to be deleted from the aforementioned order. At this stage when we finished dictating the order Mr. Karan Valecha Advocate though conceded that there is clerical error in the order dated 14.03.2023 passed in IB-647/ND/2022, but espoused that the same should not be rectified. We are unable to understand such approach of the counsel for the corporate debtor that when there is apparent clerical error in the order, which is having no bearing on merit of the decision given in the matter why the same should not be directed to be corrected. The Registry is directed to score out Para 9 & 10 from aforementioned order and issue correct copy of the order to the parties.

Application stands allowed.

It is made clear that by correcting the admitted factual error in the order, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that when Appeal was filed against the order dated 14.03.2023 by way of Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.454 of 2023, there was no occasion for deleting the paragraphs 9 and 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has pointed out to the order dated 17.10.2023 passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.454 of 2023.

4. In the order dated 17.10.2023, this Court also noticed the submissions that paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned order have got no connection with the present case rather it appears that those facts are related to some other cases. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has taken the view that when the counsels for the parties are ad idem that paragraphs 9 and 10 has no relevance with the case, we see no error in the order of the Adjudicating

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 489 of 2024 3

Authority deleting paragraphs 9 and 10 from the order. Mere pendency of the Appeal against main order is not relevant nor can denude the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority to correct an error in the order which already have been noted by this Tribunal in the order. We, thus, do not find any error in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority deleting paragraphs 9 and 10.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the action was taken very late. We fail to see how this submission is relevant with regard to deletion of paragraphs 9 and 10.

6. We dismiss the Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

Anjali/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 489 of 2024