https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784458 An applicant sought recall of an earlier NCLAT order by invoking Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, alleging apprehension of bias because the authoring Member had previously served as a Government nominee director on a public sector board. The Tribunal held that the applicant had deliberately not pursued its defective SC appeal, allowed it to stand dismissed for non-compliance with a conditional defect-curing order, and then filed the recall plea, amounting to abuse of process and forum shopping; consequently, the impugned order had attained finality inter partes. On merits, the applicant placed no material demonstrating a real likelihood of bias, and recusal cannot be sought without justification. The recall application was dismissed. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:47:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784458 An applicant sought recall of an earlier NCLAT order by invoking Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, alleging apprehension of bias because the authoring Member had previously served as a Government nominee director on a public sector board. The Tribunal held that the applicant had deliberately not pursued its defective SC appeal, allowed it to stand dismissed for non-compliance with a conditional defect-curing order, and then filed the recall plea, amounting to abuse of process and forum shopping; consequently, the impugned order had attained finality inter partes. On merits, the applicant placed no material demonstrating a real likelihood of bias, and recusal cannot be sought without justification. The recall application was dismissed. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784458