# In the matter of Adish Jain Vs. Sumit Bansal and Anr. Review Application No. 13 of 2020 in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 379 of 2020 > NCLAT judgment dated 2021-02-03. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00378. This is a review application filed against an order passed by the National Company Law… - **Court:** NCLAT - **Order date:** 3 Feb 2021 - **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00378 - **Category:** IBC - **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/adish-jain-vs-sumit-bansal-and-anr-review-application-no-13-of-2020-in-ca-ab5cc3ca ## Summary ### Background This is a review application filed against an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 379 of 2020. The original appeal was filed by the Applicant/Appellant challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority, which had admitted an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) preferred by Respondent No. 2/Operational Creditor. The NCLAT had dismissed the appeal. The Review Applicant contends that the NCLAT did not consider certain evidence and that there was a pre-existing dispute. The Review Applicant/Appellant had also preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2960 of 2020, which was dismissed. A subsequent Review Petition/Civil No. 1824 … ## Facts Adish Jain, a shareholder of J.P. Engineers Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal challenging the admission of an insolvency application against the company. The application was filed by Worldwide Metals Private Limited, an operational creditor, under Section 9 of the IBC. The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, leading Adish Jain to file a review application. The review application argued that the NCLAT failed to consider crucial evidence, including reconciled accounts and confirmatory letters, suggesting a pre-existing dispute. The applicant claimed that the NCLT erred in holding that the disputes raised by the Corporate Debtor were illusory. The applicant also highlighted that accounts were reconciled with sister concerns, indicating no amount was due and payable. The Supreme Court … ## Issues and analysis ### Issue 1: Whether the NCLAT has the power to review its own order in the absence of a specific statutory … **Ratio:** The power of review is not an inherent power and must be conferred by statute either … **Reasoning:** The NCLAT relied on several Supreme Court precedents, including 'Lily Thomas and Ors. Vs. … **Interpretation:** The legal issue concerns the scope of the NCLAT's power to review its own … **Application:** In this case, the NCLAT found that there was no statutory provision authorizing … ## Parties - **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; Anant Bijay…; +2 more - **Appellants:** Adish… - **Respondents:** M/S J.P. ENGINEERS…; Sumit B… - **Advocates:** Sakesh…; Gitanjali N.… ## Timeline - **2020-08-10 — Original…**: The Tribunal passed an order which is the… - **2020-09-04 — Supreme Court Appeal…**: The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Review Applicant/Appellant… --- This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/adish-jain-vs-sumit-bansal-and-anr-review-application-no-13-of-2020-in-ca-ab5cc3ca