Limitation and recall under company law fail where subsequent proceedings show knowledge of the challenged order.

Limitation under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 was not defeated by the absence of formal service where the appellants' own subsequent proceedings showed knowledge of the order they later sought to challenge. The appellants had filed connected applications under the same resolution plan and pursued them until disposal, which undermined their plea that limitation had not commenced. On those facts, reliance on certified-copy and limitation principles did not assist them, and no recognised ground for recall was made out. The request for recall was therefore held not maintainable, and the earlier dismissal of the appeals as time-barred was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dismissing the appeals as time-barred called for recall on the ground that limitation under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 had not commenced in the absence of service of the order and whether any ground for recall was otherwise made out.

Analysis: The Appellants had themselves filed applications seeking relief under the same resolution plan and those applications were disposed of earlier, which negatived the contention that they were unaware of the order sought to be challenged. The order under challenge was of 02.02.2021, while the Appellants had moved connected applications in 2022 and pursued them until disposal on 14.02.2023. In these circumstances, the plea that limitation had not begun for want of service of the order was not accepted. The reliance placed on the law relating to limitation and certified copies did not assist the Appellants on the facts, and the grounds for recall were also not within the recognised parameters for recall.

Conclusion: The request for recall was not maintainable on the facts and the dismissal of the appeals as barred by limitation was upheld.

Final Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the earlier dismissal order, and the applications for recall failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot claim absence of service to defeat limitation where its own subsequent proceedings demonstrate knowledge of the order, and recall is unavailable unless a recognised ground for recall is shown.

---