Recall Application Seeking Review Of NCLAT Judgment Is Not Permissible: NCLAT Chennai
Mohd.Rehan Ali
22 Sept 2025 2:15 PM IST
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra, has held that a recall application seeking review of the NCLAT's order is not permissible. The appellant, erstwhile liquidator of the corporate debtor, filed an appeal against the decision of the adjudicating authority, which was...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra, has held that a recall application seeking review of the NCLAT's order is not permissible.
The appellant, erstwhile liquidator of the corporate debtor, filed an appeal against the decision of the adjudicating authority, which was dismissed by the NCLAT. The appellant, however, was aggrieved by some observations made against him by NCLT Chennai. The NCLT made the said observations due to the appellants' failure to hand over certain documents to the new liquidator on time.
The appellant contended that the impugned order was passed without giving him the opportunity of being heard, and the adjudicating authority should not have made the observation in his absence.
Initially, the appellant filed the review application, which was declared non-maintainable by NCLAT due to the absence of review jurisdiction. Thereafter, the appellant changed the nomenclature of the application.
The NCLAT referred to the judgment of the Union Bank of India vs. Mr. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian, (2023) SCC Online NCLAT 283, wherein it was held that the NCLAT doesn't have the power to review, but it can recall its judgment. Discussing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres India Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2592), the bench observed that recall can only be made if the order has been obtained by fraud, or the party has misled the court, or when the court itself has committed a mistake.
Further, the bench discussed the ruling of Aircastle (Ireland) Ltd. vs. Mr. Ashish Chawchharia, The Resolution Professional of Jet Airways (India) Limited And Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1178 of 2024, wherein the bench observed that the power to recall cannot be exercised where the remedy in other proceedings such as appeal or revision was available but ignored.
Here, in the present case, the appellant had been consistently appearing in person, as his presence was duly recorded in orders. Also, the appellant had denied that there was any factual error in the order of the NCLT. While observing the dismissal order of the NCLAT, the tribunal observed that there is no sufficient ground for the recall of the order.
The bench observed that “the recall application in essence seeks review of this Tribunal's order, which is not permissible.” Also, the appellant had the opportunity to appeal against the judgment; therefore, it cannot seek recall as an alternative.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed due to lack of merit.
Case Name: V. Venkata Sivakumar v. S. Hari Karthik, New Liquidator of The Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd & Anr.
Case No.: Review App No. 03/2023 in Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 155/2023 To Recall IA No. 677/2024
For Appellant: Mr. V. Venkata Sivakumar, Advocate.
For Respondent: Mr. J. Manivannan, Advocate for R1.
Corum: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra
Order Date: 04.09.2025