Delhi High Court: In a case filed seeking recall of an order which held that since Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [‘CIRP'] proceedings had commenced, the moratorium would take into effect and consequently all proceedings against the corporate debtor would stand interdicted, Yashwant Varma, J., held that while exercising the power conferred by Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court does not cease to be a Court of Record and the review or reopening of proceedings sought is not with respect to any power exercised by the Court under Section 11 on merits but on account of the evident factual mistake in that order, hence is permissible.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power which the High Court exercises as a nominee of the Chief Justice under Section 11 of the Act is no longer liable to be construed or viewed as merely an administrative power but judicial in character.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that as the Court was exercising powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it would not be entitled to undertake what is and would be entitled to construe as a substantive review.
Placing reliance on United India Insurance Company Limited v. Antique Art Exports Private Ltd., (2019) 5 SCC 362, the Court noted that it would be incorrect for the Court to hold that the power exercised under Section 11 of the Act is a mere administrative function rather it is purely judicial.
The Court observed that it would be incorrect to hold or to sustain the submission that while exercising the power conferred by Section 11 of the Act, the Court ceases to be a Court of Record and the review or reopening of proceedings which is sought is not with respect to any power exercised by the Court under Section 11 on merits but on account of the evident factual mistake in that order.
Thus, the Court recalled the impugned order and held that it suffers from an evident factual error based on the incorrect statement made by counsel.
[Always Remember Properties Private Limited v. Reliance Home Finance Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4479, decided on 07-12-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Mr. Gaurav Mishra, Mr. Daman Popli, Ms. Ria Chanda and Ms. Neetu Devrani, Advocates before Petitioner;
Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya and Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Advocates for R-1.
*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
