Doctrine of merger bars recall where the order has been affirmed on appeal and no review power exists.

An application seeking recall of an earlier NCLT order was held not maintainable where that order had already been carried in appeal, affirmed by the appellate forum, and the further challenge had failed before the Supreme Court. The earlier order was treated as having merged in the appellate order and therefore no longer had an independent existence. The Tribunal also stated that it had no statutory power to review or recall its own order under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, and that review could not be used as a substitute for appeal. The application was rejected for lack of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application seeking recall of the earlier order was maintainable in view of the doctrine of merger and the absence of any power of review or recall.

Analysis: The earlier order had already been carried in appeal, the appellate order had affirmed it, and the further challenge before the Supreme Court had also failed. In such a situation, the original order ceased to have an independent existence and stood merged in the appellate order. The Tribunal also held that it was not vested with any power to review or recall its own order under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, and that the review remedy could not be invoked as a substitute for appeal. The application therefore suffered from a lack of jurisdiction and was not maintainable.

Conclusion: The recall application was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an order has merged in the appellate order and the tribunal has no statutory power of review or recall, a fresh application seeking recall of that order is not maintainable.

---