Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal Upholds Dismissal of Petition Due to Incomplete Info, Citing Rule 11 and Legal Procedure.

The NCLAT dismissed the appeal against the NCLT order dated 5th April 2024, which denied the restoration of the company petition initially dismissed due to incomplete information from the appellant. The Tribunal affirmed that the recall application was impermissible under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, as no appeal was filed against the original order dated 20th December 2023. The appellant's ill health was insufficient to justify the recall, and the Tribunal found no grounds such as lack of jurisdiction or fraud to warrant recalling the order. The decision underscored adherence to proper legal procedures in challenging orders.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against order dismissing company petition on grounds of incomplete information due to appellant's ill health, Restoration/recall application dismissed without proper reasoning, Maintainability of appeal against impugned order dated 5th April, 2024 seeking restoration of order dated 20th December, 2023, Distinction between review and recall, Legal grounds for recalling an order, Inherent power of the Tribunal to recall judgment, Upheld orders by NCLAT and Supreme Court, Comparison with Budhia Swain case, Lack of jurisdiction, Fraud or collusion, Mistake of the court prejudicing a party, Failure to file an appeal against the order dated 20th December, 2023, Permissibility of recall application under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, Legality of impugned order dated 5th April, 2024.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against the order dated 5th April, 2024, passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Restoration Application No. 7 of 2024 in CP No.4024 of 2018. The company petition was dismissed on account of the appellant's inability to provide certain information due to her bad health, leading to a Restoration/recall Application No.7/2024. The respondent argued against the maintainability of the appeal, citing the lack of an appeal against the original order dated 20th December, 2023. The appellant's ill health was used as a ground for not filing the necessary documents, but questions arose regarding why only the appellant filed the appeal and recall application when there were three other petitioners involved. The Tribunal noted that the order dated 20th December, 2023 was appealable, and since no appeal was filed against it, the recall application was not maintainable.

In a reference to the Union Bank of India Vs Dinkar T Venkatasubramanian case, the Tribunal highlighted the distinction between review and recall, emphasizing that the power to recall a judgment is inherent in the Tribunal. The Tribunal also referenced the Budhia Swain case, which outlined the grounds for recalling an order, such as lack of jurisdiction, fraud, mistake of the court, or failure to serve a necessary party. The Tribunal found that the order dated 20th December, 2023 did not fall within these grounds and that filing a recall application instead of an appeal was impermissible under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules.

Ultimately, the Tribunal examined the impugned order dated 5th April, 2024, and found no illegality in it. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and pending applications were closed. The judgment emphasized the importance of following the correct legal procedures and grounds for challenging orders to maintain the integrity of the legal process.

---