Final settlement cannot be undermined by securitisation proceedings when a competent tribunal's concluded decision binds the parties.

A withdrawal order may be recalled where later events show that restoring the petition is necessary to preserve the effect of a binding adjudication and prevent injustice. The High Court recalled the withdrawal and restored the petition. It also clarified that securitisation proceedings cannot be used to defeat a final settlement recorded by a competent Tribunal or to nullify a concluded decision on the same liability. The bank was therefore restrained from proceeding under the securitisation law for dues covered by the final settlement, while its right to act in accordance with law if the Tribunal's decision is later set aside was preserved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order permitting withdrawal of the petition should be recalled and the petition restored for hearing on merits; (ii) whether the secured creditor could continue proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in respect of a liability already covered by a final settlement recorded by the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Recalling a withdrawal order is ordinarily not warranted merely because a party later wishes to reopen the matter. However, where subsequent events show that the dispute stood concluded by a binding adjudication and the withdrawal would otherwise permit an attempt to unsettle that conclusion, restoration can be justified to prevent injustice.

Conclusion: The order permitting withdrawal was recalled and the petition was restored.

Issue (ii): Proceedings under the securitisation law cannot be used so as to nullify the binding effect of a competent Tribunal's decision, particularly where the parties have acted upon the recorded settlement and the challenge to the Tribunal's refusal to review has also come to an end. A secured creditor may not resort to the statutory remedy to defeat the finality of such adjudication.

Conclusion: The bank was held not entitled to proceed under the securitisation law for the dues covered by the finalised settlement and Tribunal order.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were allowed in part by restoring the withdrawn proceedings and by restraining securitisation in relation to the finally settled claim, while preserving the bank's right to act in accordance with law if the Tribunal's decision is later set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory enforcement remedies cannot be employed to defeat the binding finality of an adjudicated settlement or to nullify a competent forum's concluded decision on the same liability.

---