CA(AT)(I)-1504/2019-NCLAT

Review Application – Power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record cannot be construed to confer a power on the Appellate Tribunal to reappraise material on record to substitute a finding – Anubhav Anil Kumar Agarwal Vs. Bank of India – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that a mere glance at Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 would reveal that the powers thereunder are exercisable by the ‘Tribunal’ defined under Section 2(90) which means the ‘National Company Law tribunal, constituted under Section 408’. This power is not specifically conferred on the Appellate Tribunal. That apart, power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record cannot be construed to confer a power on the Appellate Tribunal to reappraise material on record to substitute a finding. This would amount to usurping the jurisdiction vested in a court of appeal. The finding of fact may be erroneous but if the same is based on appreciation of evidence, reappraisal of material on record to arrive at a different finding changing the decision rendered on merit would be impermissible. Elaborating it to avoid confusion, it can be stated without any fear of contradiction that misreading of evidence / material or drawing of a wrong conclusion from it which involves application of mind, would not justify invoking of inherent powers to substitute that findings and alter the judgment.

Review Application – Power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record cannot be construed to confer a power on the Appellate Tribunal to reappraise material on record to substitute a finding – Anubhav Anil Kumar Agarwal Vs. Bank of India – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

If Corporate Debtor has written the letter for due debt, the period of limitation stands shifted to the date on which the Corporate Debtor agreed to pay- Anubhav Anilkumar Agarwal Vs. Bank of India – NCLAT

In the present case, the Corporate Debtor by its letter dated 18.03.2016/20.03.2019 has specifically stated that it will make an effort in reducing their outstanding dues and raise other funding to save their Bank account from getting NPA. The last three paragraphs of the aforesaid letter show that to save the Bank Account from getting NPA and citing the good reputation and goodwill, the ‘Corporate Debtor’ agreed to pay the amount and acknowledged the dues. In view of the letter dated 18th March, 2016 written to the Bank, NCLAT has held that the period of limitation stands shifted to the date on which the Corporate Debtor agreed to pay and thus,  held that the Application under Section 7 of the Code was not barred by limitation.

If Corporate Debtor has written the letter for due debt, the period of limitation stands shifted to the date on which the Corporate Debtor agreed to pay- Anubhav Anilkumar Agarwal Vs. Bank of India – NCLAT Read Post »

Scroll to Top