Inherent powers cannot recall a consent withdrawal order where delay is inordinate, unexplained, and knowledge of the order existed.

Inordinate and unexplained delay in seeking recall was treated as fatal where the applicant knew of the withdrawal order soon after it was passed. The explanation that action was awaited from the Company Secretary was rejected because the representative's authority had not been withdrawn and the record showed participation in the proceedings. The withdrawal order was treated as a consent order passed through an authorised representative, and inherent powers could not be used as a substitute for review or recall in the absence of any legal vacuum. The recall request was therefore held impermissible on these facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 594 days in filing the recall application was satisfactorily explained so as to warrant condonation; (ii) Whether the order dismissing the company petition as withdrawn could be recalled under the Tribunal's inherent powers.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 594 days in filing the recall application was satisfactorily explained so as to warrant condonation.

Analysis: The Appellant had knowledge of the withdrawal order shortly after it was passed and remained inactive for an inordinately long period. The explanation that he was awaiting action by the Company Secretary was found unacceptable, especially when the authority of the representative had not been withdrawn and the record showed participation in the proceedings. The delay was therefore treated as unexplained and inordinate.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the finding is against the Appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the order dismissing the company petition as withdrawn could be recalled under the Tribunal's inherent powers.

Analysis: The withdrawal order was treated as an order obtained through the Appellant's authorised representative and, on the facts, as a consent order. Inherent powers under the Tribunal Rules could not be used to secure a review or recall of such an order, particularly where there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay and no legal vacuum requiring exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Invocation of recall was therefore held to be impermissible.

Conclusion: The recall application was not maintainable and the finding is against the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed the rejection of condonation and the connected recall relief failed as a consequence, leaving the challenge unsuccessful.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent powers cannot be invoked to recall a consent order procured through an authorised representative when the applicant had knowledge of the order and the delay in seeking recall remains inordinate and unexplained.

---