Case Note & Summary
The matter before the Bombay High Court was a review petition filed by the promoter and guarantor of M/s. Perfect Infraengineers Ltd. seeking review and recall of a consent judgment dated 1 October 2024 passed in Writ Petition (L) No. 26313 of 2024. The original writ petition had challenged orders dated 15 July 2024 passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, including an order admitting Company Petition No. 322/IBC/MB/2023 and initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor. The writ petition was disposed of by a consent order after both parties agreed that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to place before the NCLT the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 1 August 2024 in SLP(C) No. 7898 of 2024, which held that instructions/directions issued by the Central Government under Section 9 and by the RBI under Sections 21 and 35A had statutory force and binding on banking companies. The consent order directed the NCLT to grant such opportunity, maintain status quo over the CIRP order until fresh orders, required the petitioner to withdraw multiple pending proceedings, and set aside certain other NCLT orders as redundant. The petitioner subsequently appeared before the NCLT and a detailed order was passed by the NCLT. In the review petition, the petitioner argued that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and relied on the Supreme Court decision in Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty & Anr. The Court observed that all grounds and contentions in the review petition were a mere rehash of the original writ petition and no error apparent on the face of the record existed. It noted that the judgment under review was passed by consent of the parties, and the petitioner had acted upon the judgment by appearing before the NCLT. The Court held that review of a consent order is not maintainable, and the cited decision did not apply. Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed, and the interim application was disposed of as nothing survived.
Headnote
A) Review Petition - Maintainability of Review of Consent Order - Review of consent order not maintainable without error apparent on face of record - Not mentioned - The petitioner sought review of a consent judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 26313 of 2024; the Court found all grounds were a mere rehash of the original petition and no error apparent on the face of the record existed; Held that no case for review was made out and the judgment under review being by consent could not be reviewed (Paras 3-5). B) Insolvency and Bankruptcy - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Status Quo and Opportunity to Place Supreme Court Order Before NCLT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (sections not cited) - The consent order directed the NCLT to allow the petitioner to place the Supreme Court order dated 1 August 2024 on record and make submissions before adjudicating the CIRP; status quo was to be maintained over the NCLT order initiating CIRP until fresh orders; the petitioner appeared before NCLT and acted upon the order, indicating acceptance; Held that this further barred review (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition seeking recall of the consent judgment dated 1 October 2024 is maintainable; whether any error apparent on the face of the record justified review; whether the decision in Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty & Anr. applied to the facts.
Final Decision
Review Petition (L) No. 33425 of 2024 dismissed; Interim Application (L) No. 18572 of 2025 disposed of as nothing survived.
Law Points
- Review of consent order is not maintainable
- error apparent on face of record is sine qua non for review
- re-argument of merits is impermissible in review jurisdiction
- grounds in review cannot be mere rehash of original petition
- party acting upon consent order cannot seek review
- consent order binds all parties including promoters and directors
- NCLT directed to decide Company Petition expeditiously
- status quo limited to CIRP initiation until fresh NCLT order
