Tribunal Denies Application to Recall Dismissed Appeals for Late Filing Under Section 421, Citing Time-Barred Status.

The Tribunal rejected the Appellant's application to recall an order dismissing Appeals due to delayed filing under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal determined that the Appeals were time-barred, as they were filed more than 90 days after the Appellant's related application was disposed of, and the Appellant could not claim ignorance of the order dated 02.02.2021. The Tribunal found no valid grounds for recall, as the Supreme Court judgment cited by the Appellant did not support their position on the computation of limitation. Consequently, the recall applications were denied.

---

---

Issues involved: Application for recall of order based on delay in filing Appeals under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Summary:
The Appellant filed an Application seeking to recall an order dated 21.08.2023, where Appeals were dismissed due to delay in filing. The Appellant argued that the Appeals were filed under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the limitation for filing the Appeal should not start until the copy of the order is served. However, the Respondents contended that the Appeals were time-barred even under Section 421. The Respondents highlighted that the Appellant had previously filed an application seeking payment under a Resolution Plan, which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 14.02.2023. The present Appeals were filed more than 90 days after this application, making them time-barred under Section 421.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and records and noted that the order being challenged in the Appeals was dated 02.02.2021. The Appellants themselves had filed an application related to the Resolution Plan, which was disposed of on 14.02.2023. Therefore, the Appellants cannot claim ignorance of the order, and as per Section 421, the Appeals were barred by limitation. The Appellant cited a Supreme Court judgment regarding the computation of limitation under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, emphasizing the date of receipt of the certified copy as the starting point for limitation. However, the Tribunal found that the cited judgment did not support the Appellant's position.

Moreover, the Tribunal referred to a previous judgment regarding grounds for recall of a judgment, stating that the present case did not fall within any permissible grounds for recall. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no valid reason for recalling the judgment, and the Applications for recall were rejected.

---