Recall jurisdiction under inherent powers is limited to procedural defects, while conflicting views on review were referred to a larger bench.

The Appellate Tribunal noted that the insolvency statute does not confer a statutory power of review, but Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules preserves limited inherent powers to make orders necessary to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. It distinguished recall from review by stating that recall may be invoked only for procedural defects affecting hearing rights, such as non-service, non-joinder of a necessary party, fraud, collusion, or a patent mistake, while review entails reconsideration on merits. Because earlier coordinate bench views created uncertainty on the scope of recall jurisdiction, the Tribunal referred the maintainability issue and the conflicting rulings to the Chairperson for constitution of a larger bench.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal can entertain a recall application under its inherent powers in the absence of a statutory power of review, and whether the conflicting views on recall and review require consideration by a larger bench.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the insolvency statute does not confer a power of review on the Appellate Tribunal, but Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 preserves inherent powers to pass orders necessary to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. It distinguished recall from review by observing that recall may lie in limited situations involving procedural infirmity, such as absence of service, non-joinder of a necessary party, fraud, collusion, or a patent mistake affecting a party's hearing rights, whereas review involves re-examination on merits. The Tribunal also noticed prior coordinate bench decisions treating recall and review as substantially alike and creating uncertainty on the scope of inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did not decide the recall application on merits and instead referred the questions on maintainability and the correctness of the earlier coordinate bench rulings to the Hon'ble Chairperson for constitution of a larger bench.

Final Conclusion: The matter was kept open for authoritative determination by a larger bench on the scope of recall jurisdiction under the Tribunal's inherent powers.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory power of review, a recall application may be considered only for limited procedural grounds affecting natural justice, and unresolved conflict on the scope of that jurisdiction may be referred to a larger bench.

---