NCLAT rejects recall application as no fraud or procedural defect found in Section 7 insolvency proceedings

The NCLAT dismissed a recall application seeking to overturn an earlier order that had rejected an appeal. The original appeal was dismissed because the court found valid debt and default existed, and the Section 7 application by the financial creditor was within limitation. The NCLAT held that no grounds existed for recall as there was no fraud, collusion, error, mistake, or procedural defect like non-service of necessary parties. The tribunal determined the applicant was attempting to re-argue previously decided issues including limitation, acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1963, and locus standi, which exceeded the tribunal's limited jurisdiction for recall applications.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Misrepresentation and Fraud
2. Jural Relationship
3. Limitation and Acknowledgment of Debt
4. Conditional Acknowledgment and Recall Application Grounds

Summary:

Issue A: Misrepresentation and Fraud
The Applicant contended that the Respondent misrepresented facts and committed fraud by including the Sivananda Reddy Group, who allegedly had no jural relationship with the debtors. The Tribunal found no merit in this argument, stating that the Sivananda Reddy Group was indeed managing the affairs of the Company as per the BIFR Order dated 22.11.2011. The Tribunal dismissed the claims of fraud and misrepresentation, noting that the Applicant was a party to the BIFR proceedings.

Issue B: Jural Relationship
The Applicant argued that the Sivananda Reddy Group had no locus to submit the One Time Settlement (OTS) proposals. The Tribunal reiterated its previous findings that the Sivananda Reddy Group was managing the Company's affairs and that the Applicant's attempts to reargue this issue were not permissible within the limited jurisdiction of a Recall Application.

Issue C: Limitation and Acknowledgment of Debt
The Applicant claimed that the OTS proposals were made after the expiry of the limitation period. The Tribunal referenced its previous order and the Supreme Court's judgment in Axis Bank Limited Vs. Naren Sheth & Anr., concluding that the OTS proposals were within the period of limitation. The Tribunal emphasized that rearguing the matter of limitation was not within its jurisdiction in a Recall Application.

Issue D & E: Conditional Acknowledgment and Recall Application Grounds
The Applicant contended that the OTS proposals were conditional and did not attract Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Tribunal referred to its earlier detailed discussions on this issue and cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Budhia Swain & Ors. Vs. Gopinath Deb & Ors., which clarified the grounds for recall. The Tribunal found no procedural errors, fraud, or mistakes that would justify recalling the order.

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was attempting to reargue the entire matter under the guise of a Recall Application. Given the limited jurisdiction and lack of substantial reasons, the Recall Application was dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had already filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, which was pending.

---