Finality of proceedings bars reopening ex parte orders once the Tribunal has become functus officio.

The Tribunal refused to condone delay or set aside the ex parte order after the matter had already culminated in a final order. It noted that multiple opportunities had been granted, the proceedings had attained finality, and the Tribunal had become functus officio, so there was no basis to reopen or modify the concluded matter. It also noticed that the proviso to Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 restricts amendment of an order where an appeal has been preferred. The requested procedural relief was therefore rejected, and the ex parte order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to condonation of delay and to have the ex parte order set aside after the proceedings had culminated in a final order.

Analysis: The application was filed to challenge the ex parte order passed earlier in the same matter and to reopen the proceedings. The applicant relied on limitation-related grounds, while the opposing party contended that adequate opportunity had already been granted, the matter had been finally decided, and the Tribunal had become functus officio. The Tribunal held that several opportunities had been afforded, the ex parte order had attained finality in view of the final order already passed, and there was no basis to modify or reopen concluded proceedings. The proviso to Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 was also noticed as restricting amendment of an order against which an appeal has been preferred.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay and consequential relief was rejected, and the ex parte order was not interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to reopen proceedings that had already reached judicial finality and refused the requested procedural relief.

---