Inherent powers cannot create review jurisdiction over a final NCLAT order where the insolvency statute withholds it.

The NCLAT's inherent powers under Rule 11 cannot be used to recall, review, or materially modify a final order where the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not confer such jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the statutory appellate scheme under Section 61 provides the appeal route within the Code, while Section 62 provides an appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law, and these provisions do not authorise the Appellate Tribunal to unsettle a concluded decision. Inherent powers remain limited and cannot override express statutory restrictions. Accordingly, the request to recall or substantially alter the final order was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal could invoke its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 to recall or substantially modify a final order.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not confer any power of review or recall on the Appellate Tribunal. Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides the statutory appellate route and Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides an appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law. Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 cannot be used to create a substantive jurisdiction to unsettle a final decision or to effect a substantive alteration of an already concluded order. The Tribunal also relied on the limited scope of inherent powers, which cannot override express statutory limitations.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 to recall or materially modify its final order, and the application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent powers cannot be invoked to confer a review or recall jurisdiction over a final order where the governing statute does not provide such power.

---