Statutory tribunals lack inherent review power, and insolvency threshold notifications operate prospectively unless expressly made retrospective.

A statutory tribunal cannot recall or review its own final admission order unless that power is expressly conferred; neither Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 nor Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 authorised such review, so the proper remedy was appeal. A notification issued under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code enhancing the pecuniary threshold was held prospective only, because it contained no express retrospective mandate and could not be read as divesting pending proceedings. The recall application therefore failed, and the earlier admission order continued to operate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal had power to recall or review its final admission order in the absence of an express statutory provision; (ii) Whether the notification dated 24.03.2020 enhancing the pecuniary threshold under the insolvency law operated retrospectively so as to invalidate the pending corporate insolvency proceeding.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal had power to recall or review its final admission order in the absence of an express statutory provision

Analysis: The application sought recall of an order admitting the main insolvency petition and commencing the corporate insolvency resolution process. The Tribunal held that it is a creature of statute and cannot exercise review or recall jurisdiction over its own final order unless such power is expressly conferred. Neither Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 nor Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 was found to authorize recall or review of a merits order. The proper remedy for an aggrieved party was an appeal under the insolvency law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no power to recall or review its admission order, and the application was not maintainable on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification dated 24.03.2020 enhancing the pecuniary threshold under the insolvency law operated retrospectively so as to invalidate the pending corporate insolvency proceeding

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the notification issued under the proviso to Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 contained no express stipulation making it retrospective, nor could such retrospectivity be implied from the statutory scheme. The matter had been heard and reserved before the notification, and the law prevailing when the petition was filed, heard, and reserved governed the proceeding. The Tribunal also distinguished the cases cited on vested rights and retrospective legislation, holding that delegated power under the Code did not extend to effacing pending matters without express authorization.

Conclusion: The notification was prospective only and did not divest the Tribunal of pecuniary jurisdiction over the pending matter.

Final Conclusion: The recall application failed in entirety, and the earlier admission order continued to operate.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal created by statute cannot recall or review its final order without express power, and a delegated notification enhancing jurisdictional thresholds operates prospectively unless retrospective operation is expressly or necessarily intended by the statute.

---