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 earlier appellate order warranted recall on the grounds of alleged denial of hearing, fraud or collusion, mistake of the Court, or lack of jurisdiction.
Analysis: Recall is an inherent jurisdiction distinct from review and is available only on limited grounds such as fraud, collusion, patent lack of jurisdiction, a mistake of the Court prejudicing a party, or non-service of a necessary party. The appellant had appeared on several dates in the earlier proceedings, the record showed that the issue of handover of records and cooperation with the new liquidator had been addressed, and the challenge essentially sought re-agitation of the merits. No material was shown to establish fraud, collusion, jurisdictional infirmity, or any other ground justifying recall.
Conclusion: The application for recall was not maintainable on the facts and was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The earlier order remained undisturbed, and the attempt to use recall as a substitute for review or appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal may recall its own order only on narrow grounds such as fraud, collusion, patent lack of jurisdiction, a prejudicial mistake of the Court, or non-service of a necessary party, and not to re-open findings that should have been challenged in appeal or review.