Recall jurisdiction cannot reopen a concluded appellate order on an unsubstantiated fraud allegation after remand permitted amendment.

A recall application alleging fraud in obtaining permission to amend a section 7 application was found misconceived because the Supreme Court had remanded the matter and expressly permitted the amendment in the pending appeal. The Tribunal found no error or misstatement in the earlier order that would justify recall, noted that the later admission order and dismissal of the subsequent appeal had not been challenged, and held that recall jurisdiction could not be used to reopen a concluded appellate order on an unsubstantiated fraud allegation. The request to recall the order dated 16.10.2023 was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the recall application alleging fraud in obtaining the order permitting amendment of the section 7 application was maintainable and whether any ground existed to recall the order dismissing the appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had remanded the matter and expressly permitted amendment of the section 7 application. The amendment application was therefore properly moved before the Tribunal where the appeal was pending. The order dated 11.01.2022 recorded no error or misstatement amounting to fraud, and the later admission order and dismissal of the subsequent appeal had not been challenged. In these circumstances, the recall plea was held to be misconceived.

Conclusion: The allegation of fraud was rejected and the request to recall the order dated 16.10.2023 was declined.

Final Conclusion: The recall jurisdiction was not available to reopen the concluded appellate order, and the application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A recall application cannot be used to reopen a concluded order merely on an unsubstantiated allegation of fraud when the challenged procedural step was taken pursuant to a remand and in the pending proceeding.

---