Recall request over wrong judgment date in company appeal order rejected, as no fraud, defect, or injustice shown.

An application sought recall of an appellate order on the ground that the judgment date in a company appeal was wrongly mentioned. The Tribunal held that it has inherent power to recall its own orders only in limited circumstances, namely where the order is without jurisdiction, obtained by fraud or collusion, vitiated by a fundamental procedural defect (including non-service on a necessary party), passed on a misunderstanding of facts causing prejudice, or results in gross failure of justice. As none of these jurisdictional or procedural preconditions for recall were established on the facts, the recall application was rejected and disposed of.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the Tribunal should recall its dismissal order dated 08.09.2025 under Rule 11 on the grounds urged, including alleged factual errors and non-consideration of certain prayers and allegations.

(ii) Whether limited corrections/rectifications were required in prior orders and in the dismissal order (wrong date of an earlier judgment; typographical error), and whether such errors affected the validity of the dismissal order.

(iii) Whether the pendency of a contempt case meant the Tribunal's recording that "nothing is pending" was erroneous in a manner warranting recall.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Recall of dismissal order dated 08.09.2025 under Rule 11

Legal framework: The Tribunal acknowledged it has power to recall its own order, but held it can be exercised only in limited situations, namely where (i) the order is without jurisdiction; (ii) obtained by fraud or collusion; (iii) there is a fundamental procedural error such as non-service on a necessary party; (iv) the order was passed on a misunderstanding of facts resulting in prejudice; or (v) there is gross failure of justice.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the applicant's grievances and found that, apart from correcting certain clerical/factual mistakes, none of the pleaded grounds satisfied the above recall thresholds. It specifically found no prejudice or failure of justice occasioned by the dismissal order dated 08.09.2025. It also declined to comment on materials stated to be part of applications pending before the NCLT, treating them as matters for that forum.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held none of the necessary ingredients for recall were established and refused to recall the dismissal order dated 08.09.2025, disposing of the recall application.

Issue (ii): Whether corrections were warranted for wrong date/typographical error and their effect

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found the date of judgment in Company Appeal (AT) No.242/2024 was incorrectly mentioned in two orders (29.08.2025 and corrected copy dated 02.09.2025) and held the correct date was 18.12.2024. The Tribunal directed the date be corrected and "read accordingly." Separately, it accepted the applicant's point that in the order dated 08.09.2025 a typographical mistake occurred (recording "NCLNT" instead of "NCLT") and directed correction.

Conclusion: The Tribunal ordered the above limited corrections, but held these rectifications did not justify recalling the dismissal order dated 08.09.2025.

Issue (iii): Effect of pendency of a contempt case on the Tribunal's statement that nothing was pending

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found the referenced contempt case was in relation to a different order than the order dated 01.04.2022. It held that the dismissal order dated 08.09.2025 recorded only that nothing was pending against the order dated 01.04.2022 before the Tribunal, and therefore the applicant's grievance did not disclose an error requiring interference.

Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the contention that the pendency of the contempt case warranted recall or modification of the dismissal order on this ground.

Additional determinative finding (perjury-related grievance): The Tribunal noted a similar perjury-related application had earlier been dismissed (on 18.12.2024) and held that, in view of that dismissal, the perjury aspect was not taken up in the present recall proceedings, and rightly so. The Tribunal ultimately found no failure of justice arising from the dismissal order dated 08.09.2025 and declined recall, while requesting the NCLT to take up and dispose of the applicant's pending applications expeditiously.

---