NCLAT rejects application to recall order despite claims judgments cited were not good law

NCLAT Principal Bench rejected an application seeking recall of its order dated 31.03.2023. The applicants alleged the order was obtained by citing judgments that were not good law, specifically two judgments whose correctness was later doubted by a three-member bench. The Tribunal held that the two-member bench had fully heard the applicants before passing the order and properly applied the doctrine of merger. The Tribunal clarified it lacks jurisdiction to review its own judgments and cannot take a different view from what was decided on 31.03.2023, rejecting the contention that the order was a nullity.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application for recall of the order dated 31.03.2023.
2. Locus standi of the Applicants to file the application.
3. Doctrine of merger and its applicability.
4. Allegation of fraud in obtaining the order dated 31.03.2023.
5. Power of recall by the Tribunal.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Application:
The application I.A. No. 2854 of 2023 was filed by SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. and Ms. Limalemla Longkumer, praying for recall of the order dated 31.03.2023. The Tribunal dismissed I.A. No. 647 of 2023 on grounds of maintainability, stating that the Applicants had no locus to file the application. The Tribunal also held that the order dated 04.07.2019 merged with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.11.2019.

2. Locus Standi of the Applicants:
The Tribunal noted that Applicant No. 2, a shareholder of SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd., claimed to act on behalf of the company. However, the Tribunal found that the management of Applicant No. 1 was under the control of an Administrator appointed by NCLT Kolkata. The Tribunal concluded that it would be difficult to entertain the application particularly on the ground of locus of the Applicant.

3. Doctrine of Merger:
The Tribunal held that the order of this Tribunal dated 04.07.2019 merged with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.11.2019. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to accede to the prayer for recall of the judgment which was passed long back in 2019 and finally merged with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. Allegation of Fraud:
The Applicants argued that the order dated 31.03.2023 was obtained by fraud, citing selected extracts of judgments and suppressing relevant parts. The Tribunal, however, found no evidence of fraud played on the Court while passing the order dated 31.03.2023. The Tribunal emphasized that the power of recall is inherent but must be based on sufficient grounds such as fraud, which was not established in this case.

5. Power of Recall by the Tribunal:
The five-member bench of the Tribunal affirmed that while the Tribunal has no power to review, it does have inherent power to recall its judgment on sufficient grounds. The grounds for recall include fraud, lack of jurisdiction, and non-service to a necessary party. However, the Tribunal concluded that none of these grounds were made out to allow the application for recall of the order dated 31.03.2023.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected I.A. No. 2854 of 2023 and I.A. No. 2853 of 2023, finding no sufficient grounds to recall the judgment dated 31.03.2023. The application was deemed an attempt to review the judgment, which is beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

---