National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal of Suspended Director Against Clerical Correction Order. The appeal was dismissed as the correction was purely clerical and did not affect the Appellant's rights under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor against an order dated 07.05.2026 issued by the Learned Adjudicating Authority, which corrected a clerical error in a previous order dated 06.05.2026. The correction pertained to the name of the Corporate Debtor and was deemed to be of a minor clerical nature. During the hearing, the Tribunal queried the Appellant's counsel regarding the grievance against the Impugned Order, but no satisfactory explanation was provided. The Tribunal reviewed the appeal and concluded that the correction did not warrant an appeal as it did not impact the Appellant's rights. Furthermore, it was noted that another similar clerical error had been corrected in a subsequent order on 20.07.2026. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, stating that the correction was trivial and did not necessitate further legal scrutiny. The Tribunal also ordered that there would be no costs associated with the dismissal of the appeal.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Appeal Against Clerical Correction - Dismissal of Appeal - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The appeal was filed against a clerical correction made by the Adjudicating Authority regarding the name of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal as the correction was of a purely clerical nature and did not affect the substantive rights of the Appellant. Held that the appeal was dismissed (Paras 2-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appeal against a clerical correction order has merit.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit, with no costs ordered.

Law Points

  • Clerical error correction
  • appeal dismissal
  • jurisdiction of adjudicating authority
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (07) 36

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1237 of 2026

2026-07-29

Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Naresh Salecha

Mr. Ankit Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Ankit Anandraj Shah, Mr. Piyush Bhardwaj, Mr. Karan Gandhi, Ms. Sanjana Saddy

Satendra Tiwari & Anr.

Metro Jet Airways Training Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against a clerical correction order

Remedy Sought

Dismissal of the order correcting a clerical error

Filing Reason

Disagreement with the correction made by the Adjudicating Authority

Previous Decisions

Order dated 06.05.2026 corrected by order dated 07.05.2026

Issues

Whether the appeal against a clerical correction order has merit.

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the correction was not justified. The Respondents contended that the correction was purely clerical.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that clerical corrections made by the Adjudicating Authority do not warrant an appeal if they do not affect the substantive rights of the parties involved.

Judgment Excerpts

The instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant who is the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor against the order dated 07.05.2026. We do not find any merits in the appeal and therefore, the appeal filed by the Appellant is hereby dismissed.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the order dated 07.05.2026 correcting a clerical error in the order dated 06.05.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act Due to Non-Application of Mind. The court held that the detaining authority failed to consider the detenu's bail status and passed the order mechanically, violating the requirement of subjectiv...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Employees' Right to Bonus Under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 — Clarifies Applicability Despite Authorised Controller Appointment.