NCLAT upholds recall of order under Rule 11 after Corporate Debtor misrepresented homebuyers' compliance with Section 7

NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's recall of its order under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules. The original order disposing of a Section 7 petition was based on misrepresentation by the Corporate Debtor, who falsely claimed homebuyers lacked requisite percentage under 2nd proviso to Section 7(1) IBC. The Corporate Debtor suppressed evidence that homebuyers had filed affidavits with MAHARERA certificates proving compliance. NCLAT held that when an Adjudicating Authority relies on distorted facts due to misrepresentation, it can invoke inherent powers to prevent abuse of process. The recall was justified as the original order was not decided on merits but influenced by procedural errors and false submissions.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in the judgment are:

• Whether the Adjudicating Authority had the power to recall its order dated 04.06.2024 under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.
• Whether the order dated 04.06.2024 was passed on merits or due to procedural errors and misrepresentation by the Corporate Debtor.
• Whether the Respondents met the eligibility criteria under the 2nd proviso to Section 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to file the Company Petition.
• Whether the absence of the Respondents' counsel during crucial hearings was justified and if it affected the fairness of the proceedings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Power of Recall under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules

• Legal Framework and Precedents: The power of recall is inherent in the Tribunal as preserved by Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. It is distinct from the power of review and is exercised in cases of procedural errors or fraud.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the power to recall is not intended for rehearing a case to find apparent errors, but to address procedural errors or fraud.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor misrepresented facts regarding the number of unit holders in the housing project, affecting the maintainability of the Company Petition.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that the Adjudicating Authority was misled by the Corporate Debtor's submissions, justifying the recall of the order under Rule 11.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant argued that the recall amounted to a review, which is not permissible. However, the Tribunal distinguished between recall and review, emphasizing the presence of misrepresentation.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to recall the order, deeming it necessary to correct the procedural injustice.

Issue 2: Nature of the Order Dated 04.06.2024

• Legal Framework and Precedents: An order passed without hearing one party due to misrepresentation can be recalled to ensure justice.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the order was not on merits, as it was based solely on the Corporate Debtor's submissions without considering the Respondents' compliance with the IBC requirements.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Respondents had provided evidence of compliance with the IBC's 10% threshold requirement, which was not considered due to their absence.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal determined that the order was based on incorrect facts presented by the Corporate Debtor, warranting a recall to address the misrepresentation.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant contended that the order was final and on merits, but the Tribunal disagreed, highlighting the procedural error.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the order was not on merits and was passed without a fair hearing, justifying its recall.

Issue 3: Eligibility Criteria under Section 7(1) of IBC

• Legal Framework and Precedents: The 2nd proviso to Section 7(1) of the IBC requires a minimum threshold of 100 allottees or 10% of the total allottees for a Section 7 petition.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the Respondents met the 10% threshold, contrary to the Corporate Debtor's misrepresentation.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Respondents provided MAHARERA documentation showing only 44 units in the project, with 12 applicants meeting the threshold.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal accepted the Respondents' evidence, confirming their compliance with the IBC requirements.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant's claim of 282 units was deemed misleading, and the Tribunal favored the Respondents' documented evidence.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the Respondents were eligible to file the Company Petition, meeting the IBC's threshold criteria.

Issue 4: Justification for Absence of Respondents' Counsel

• Legal Framework and Precedents: A litigant should not suffer due to the absence of their counsel if it is justified by genuine circumstances.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the medical emergency faced by the Respondents' counsel as a valid reason for their absence.
• Key Evidence and Findings: Medical certificates were provided to substantiate the counsel's absence due to a life-threatening condition of his wife.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found the absence non-wilful and justified, impacting the fairness of the original proceedings.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellant argued against the prolonged absence, but the Tribunal found the explanation satisfactory.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the absence was justified, and the recall of the order was necessary to ensure a fair hearing.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "Power of recall is not power of the Tribunal to rehear the case to find out any apparent error in the judgment which is the scope of a review of a judgment."
• Core Principles Established: The distinction between recall and review; the necessity of addressing procedural errors and misrepresentations to ensure justice.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal upheld the recall of the order dated 04.06.2024, finding it was not on merits and was influenced by misrepresentation and procedural errors.

---