Icl

Investment and Competetion Law PSDA
Report on visit to National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

(NCLAT)
Submitted by:
Sahil Safdar
Enrollment no. 19117703820
VI-D
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH,
NEW DELHI
I.A. No. 3013 of 2022
In
Company Appeal (AT) No. 126 of 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
Union of India ... Applicant
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
K.V. Brahmaji Rao … Appellant
Vs
Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs …. Respondent
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Jain, Ms. Rhea Verma, Advocates
For Respondent: Mr. Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Central Government
Panel Counsel along with Mr. Amit Acharya, Advocate
and Mr. Chiradeep Balooni, Regional Director (WR).
ORDER
19th March, 2023
Jarat Kumar Jain. J:
This order shall govern the disposal of I.A. No. 3013 of 2020 filed in disposed of Company Appeal (AT)
No. 126 of 2019.
2. Company Appeal (AT) No. 126 of 2019 was filed by the Appellant ‘K.V. Brahmaji Rao’ before this
Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal,
Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in MA No. 406 of 2019 and MA No. 407 of 2019 in CP No. 277 of 2018.
3. After hearing the parties, this Appellate Tribunal decided the Appeal vide Judgement dated
17.08.2020. Learned Senior Panel Central Government Counsel has filed this Application under
Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 for
rectification of typing error in Paragraph 9 of the Judgment dated 17.08.2020 passed by this
Appellate Tribunal.
4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant (Respondent in Appeal) submits that in Para 9 of the Judgment
it is typed that “Learned Sr. Panel Central Government Counsel has not opposed the prayer.”
However, he has opposed the prayer as mentioned in Para 10 of the Reply Affidavit filed in the
Appeal. It seems that inadvertently the word ‘Not’ has been typed. Therefore, this may be rectified.
It will not affect the result of the Appeal. No Appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid
Judgment.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent (Appellant in Appeal) opposed the prayer. Though, it is stated
that no Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment.
6. We have considered the submissions and gone through the Reply Affidavit filed by the Applicant in
Appeal.
7. Para 10 of the Reply Affidavit of IC Balooni, S/0 JR Balooni reads as
under: -
“With reference to averments made in Para 8 and 9 of the
Appeal in respect to questions of Law and Grounds of Appeal, I
am to submit that the grounds of the Appeal are opposed by
the Respondent and it is prayed that the Hon’ble NCLT order
dated 31.01.2019 passed in M.A. No. 406 and 407 of 2019 in
Company Petition No. 277 of 2018 may be upheld by Hon’ble NCLAT.”
8. With the above averments, it is clear that the Respondent No. 1 has opposed the prayer claimed in
Appeal. It seems that in Para 9 inadvertently it was typed that Sr. Panel Central Government Counsel
has not opposed the prayer. No Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 17.08.2020
passed by this Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, we can rectify the typing error which is apparent from
the record.
9. In view of aforesaid fact, now Para 9 shall read as under:
“Learned Sr. Panel Central Government Counsel has opposed the prayer.”
10. Rectified Judgment be kept with the file.
11. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the concerned parties.
Thus, the Application is allowed. No cost.

Conclusion
In the given case, the appellant vide the present application aims to rectify the error made
by the NCLAT in a previous order it had passed. The counsel for the appellant had filed the
present application under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 11 of the
NCLAT Rules, 2016 for rectification of typing error made in one of the paragraphs of a previous order.
Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 states that:
(1) The Tribunal may, after giving the parties to any proceeding before it, a
reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks
fit.
(2) The Tribunal may, at any time within two years from the date of the order,
with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any
order passed by it, and shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought
to its notice by the parties:
Provided that no such amendment shall be made in respect of any order
against which an appeal has been preferred under this Act.
(3) The Tribunal shall send a copy of every order passed under this section to all
the parties concerned.
The statement recorded which needed rectification was not of material
importance to the facts of the case and was merely a mistake wherein the
word “not” was inadvertently added and that gave meaning to the statement
as such that the counsel for the appellant had not opposed to the prayer made
which in actuality he had opposed which is made clear by the reply affidavit
which was filed in appeal by the appellant. The rectification of which, will not
effect the result of the appeal, and that no appeal was preferred against the
judgment.

Icl

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Icl

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Icl

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investment and Competetion Law PSDA

Report on visit to National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

I.A. No. 3013 of 2022

Company Appeal (AT) No. 126 of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

Union of India ... Applicant

IN THE MATTER OF:

K.V. Brahmaji Rao … Appellant

Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs …. Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Central Government

Panel Counsel along with Mr. Amit Acharya, Advocate

and Mr. Chiradeep Balooni, Regional Director (WR).

19th March, 2023

Jarat Kumar Jain. J:

7. Para 10 of the Reply Affidavit of IC Balooni, S/0 JR Balooni reads as

“With reference to averments made in Para 8 and 9 of the

Appeal in respect to questions of Law and Grounds of Appeal, I

am to submit that the grounds of the Appeal are opposed by

the Respondent and it is prayed that the Hon’ble NCLT order

dated 31.01.2019 passed in M.A. No. 406 and 407 of 2019 in

Company Petition No. 277 of 2018 may be upheld by Hon’ble NCLAT.”

9. In view of aforesaid fact, now Para 9 shall read as under:

10. Rectified Judgment be kept with the file.

Thus, the Application is allowed. No cost.

Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 states that:

You might also like