Recall jurisdiction cannot reopen a reasoned winding up order after hearing; later developments did not justify review.

A recall petition was held not maintainable against a reasoned pre-admission order in winding up proceedings where the company had been given notice, filed counter-affidavits and been fully heard. In the absence of fraud, breach of natural justice or clerical error, recall could not be used as a substitute for appeal or review, and inherent powers could not reopen an order passed on merits. Alleged later developments, including incomplete construction, absence of an occupancy certificate, continued negative net worth and limitation objections, did not justify recall because they did not cure the grounds on which the earlier order had been made.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a recall petition was maintainable against a pre-admission order passed after notice, hearing and reasoned adjudication in winding up proceedings. (ii) Whether the alleged subsequent developments, including progress in construction, restructuring of liabilities, limitation contentions and claimed change in net worth, justified recall of the earlier order.

Issue (i): Whether a recall petition was maintainable against a pre-admission order passed after notice, hearing and reasoned adjudication in winding up proceedings.

Analysis: The order sought to be recalled was not an ex parte order. The company had been put on notice, had filed its counter-affidavit, several additional affidavits were exchanged, and the parties were fully heard before the earlier order was made. The statutory scheme under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 provides a structured procedure for winding up petitions, including pre-admission hearing, admission, advertisement and hearing after advertisement. In the absence of fraud, violation of natural justice, or clerical correction, a recall application cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or review, particularly where the Act does not confer a general power of review and the earlier order was passed on merits. Inherent powers under the Rules cannot be used to cut across express procedure or to reopen a reasoned order merely because the applicant prefers a different result.

Conclusion: The recall petition was not maintainable merely to reopen a reasoned order passed after hearing; the application was therefore untenable.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged subsequent developments, including progress in construction, restructuring of liabilities, limitation contentions and claimed change in net worth, justified recall of the earlier order.

Analysis: The asserted later developments did not cure the twin conditions recorded in the earlier order for deferring admission, namely completion of the apartments as promised and a positive net worth as reflected in the audited financial statements. The materials showed that construction had not been fully completed in the manner promised, no occupancy certificate had been produced, and the audited accounts still reflected heavy losses and negative net worth. The attempt to re-argue valuation on a market-value basis, or to convert the recall plea into a review of the earlier assessment of commercial insolvency, was impermissible. The limitation objection also did not furnish a basis for recall, because the question whether the debt remained provable could be examined in the winding up proceedings themselves and did not justify undoing the earlier order in recall jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The subsequent events did not warrant recall, and the challenge to the earlier order failed on merits.

Final Conclusion: The court declined to reopen its earlier reasoned order, held that the company had not shown a procedural or legal ground for recall, and left the winding up petition to proceed in accordance with the earlier directions.

---