Finality of insolvency orders bars recall, and later case law cannot reopen adjudicated rights.

A later Supreme Court ruling in a different case did not justify reopening final orders admitting the corporate insolvency process and directing liquidation. The Tribunal held that the earlier admission order had been affirmed on appeal and the further challenge had been dismissed, so the proceedings had attained finality. It found that the doctrine of merger and res judicata barred a fresh challenge, and that Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules could not be used as a substitute for review. The plea of inherent lack of jurisdiction was rejected because the prior orders had already passed through the appellate chain and remained final, so the recall application was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the recall application could reopen final orders admitting the corporate insolvency process and ordering liquidation on the basis of a later Supreme Court ruling taking a different view on the nature of financial debt.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the admission order had already been affirmed in appeal and the further challenge had been dismissed by the Supreme Court, thereby giving finality to the proceedings. It held that a subsequent decision in another case between different parties does not reopen rights that have already been declared and attained finality. The Tribunal also held that the doctrine of merger and res judicata barred a fresh challenge, and that Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules could not be used as a substitute for review. The plea of inherent lack of jurisdiction was rejected because the earlier orders had not merely remained untested but had been carried through the appellate chain and had attained finality.

Conclusion: The recall application was not maintainable and was rejected.

---