No implied recall power under insolvency law; corporate debtor's movable assets in landlord custody must go to the liquidator.

In the absence of an express statutory review or recall power under the insolvency framework, the Tribunal cannot use inherent powers to reopen a concluded order, so the recall application was held not maintainable and dismissed. On liquidation, movable assets belonging to the corporate debtor and lying at the landlord's premises formed part of the liquidation estate; the landlord's custody did not override the liquidator's duty to take possession and realise those assets for creditors. The earlier order was therefore not reopened, and the landlord was directed to hand over the assets to the liquidator.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Tribunal had power to recall or set aside its earlier order in the absence of an express review or recall jurisdiction under the insolvency framework; and (ii) whether movable assets in the custody of the landlord formed part of the liquidation estate and were liable to be handed over to the liquidator.

Issue (i): whether the Tribunal had power to recall or set aside its earlier order in the absence of an express review or recall jurisdiction under the insolvency framework

Analysis: The application sought recall of the earlier order. The governing insolvency legislation and the tribunal rules were treated as not conferring any express power of review or recall. A review was distinguished from appellate correction, and inherent powers could not be invoked to create a substantive jurisdiction to reopen a concluded order.

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

Issue (ii): whether movable assets in the custody of the landlord formed part of the liquidation estate and were liable to be handed over to the liquidator

Analysis: On liquidation, the liquidator is required to form and hold the liquidation estate for the benefit of creditors. The movable assets kept at the old premises were treated as assets of the corporate debtor and not as security for the landlord's rent claim. The landlord's possession could not defeat the liquidator's duty to take possession, value, and realise the assets in accordance with the insolvency process.

Conclusion: The movable assets were held to be part of the liquidation estate, and the landlord was directed to hand them over to the liquidator.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order was not reopened, and the liquidator's entitlement to recover the movable assets for liquidation was affirmed, with directions for delivery of the assets to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory provision, a tribunal under the insolvency regime cannot review or recall its own order, and assets belonging to the corporate debtor in liquidation must be surrendered to the liquidator as part of the liquidation estate.

---