No recall jurisdiction for a procedural order where repeated default closed the right to reply in insolvency proceedings.

The NCLT held that repeated failure to file a reply after multiple opportunities justified closing the respondent's right to reply, especially in insolvency proceedings where the statutory timeline must be maintained. It further held that it had no power to recall or review its own procedural order once findings had been recorded, and that the proper remedy against such an order was an appellate challenge rather than a recall application before the same Tribunal. Reference to Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules was not accepted as a source of recall jurisdiction. The request to restore the right to file the reply was therefore rejected and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to recall or review its earlier procedural order and permit the respondent to file a reply after repeated defaults.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the respondent had been granted multiple opportunities to file the reply, yet failed to do so within the time allowed. It held that the order closing the right to file the reply was passed after sufficient indulgence and that insolvency proceedings are meant to proceed within a fixed statutory timeline. The Tribunal further held that it had no power to recall or review its own order once findings had been recorded, and that the appropriate course against such an order was to pursue the available appellate remedy rather than seek recall before the same Tribunal. The reference to Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules was not treated as a source of recall jurisdiction for the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The request to recall the earlier order and restore the right to file the reply was rejected, and the application was dismissed.

---