Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the recall application against the order vacating interim protection and dismissing the appeal was maintainable at the instance of a shareholder, and whether such shareholder could be substituted in place of the suspended director.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the power of recall is not generally vested in appellate tribunals and that invocation of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was not available on the facts. It further held that the applicant, being only a shareholder, could not be substituted in place of the suspended director, whose status was legally distinct. The Tribunal also noted that other shareholders with a higher stake were not before it, and that the shareholder's position could not be equated with the role earlier occupied by the suspended director in the insolvency proceedings.
Conclusion: The recall application was not maintainable and was dismissed. The earlier order vacating the interim order and dismissing the appeal was confirmed.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the earlier dismissal failed, and the Tribunal left the prior order undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A shareholder cannot be substituted for a suspended director to sustain a recall application, and recall cannot be used to reopen an appellate order in the absence of a legally maintainable basis for such jurisdiction.