TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cates for Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd. ORDER I.A. No. 6478 of 2025- Heard Shri Gaurav Mitra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant, Shri Siddharth Yadav, Ld. Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, appearing for the non-applicant/Respondent and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been moved by the applicant (Respondent No. 2 (b) in the CA (AT) No. 917 of 2025) and the following prayers were made: (a) Recall the Judgment dated 24.09.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Appellate Authority in "Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sapan Mohan Garg & Anr.", C.A. (AT) (Ins) No. 917 of 2025; and/or (b) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Appellate Authority may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in these additional documentary evidence has been discussed. 7. It is further submitted that the manner in which these additional documents have been filed by the appellant would amount to a 'fraud' and thus the application for recall moved by the applicant be allowed and the judgment dated 24.09.2025 be recalled. 8. Shri Gaurav Mitra, Ld. Counsel has relied on the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court: (i) Budhia Swain vs. Gopinath Deb, (1999) 4 SCC 396. (ii) Union Bank of India vs. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian, (2024) 248 Comp Cas 108. (iii) Anish Lawrence vs. Renahan Vamakesan CA (AT) (Ins) No. 377 of 2023. (iv) Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin &Anr., (2012) 8 SCC 148. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the documents which have been filed by the appellant were documents which are in public domain and may be accessed by anyone and moreover this appellate tribunal has not based its judgment on the basis of these documents. 13. Elaborating further it is submitted that the crux of the judgment of this appellate tribunal has been mentioned in paragraph no. 41, wherein it has been considered that the CoC has committed a mistake in deliberating on the whole of the resolution plan while it was only open to it (CoC) to have considered only those points on the basis of which the plan was referred to it (CoC) by the adjudicating authority. 14. It is further submitted that by impugned judgment the matter has been remanded back to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the matter has been remanded back to the tribunal in paragraph no. 42 of the judgment, having regard to the findings recorded in paragraph no. 41 of the same. Paragraphs no. 41 & 42 of the judgment are reproduced as under: "41. Although we have discussed various aspects of the matter in this case but the most important issue involved is as to whether the plan which has been placed before the Tribunal for its approval, having approval of the CoC, can be remitted back by the Tribunal for its entire reconsideration or on certain elements of the plan. In this regard, we are totally guided by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ebix Singapore (Supra) and Parabhjit Singh (Supra). However, the CoC has failed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law and also keeping in view of the law laid down in Ebix Singapore (supra). 19. Paragraph No. 42 of the judgment would clearly demonstrate that the matter has been remanded for a decision 'afresh' in accordance with law and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Ebix Singapore (Supra). 20. So much so this appellate tribunal has made it crystal clear, not only to the parties but also to the Ld. Tribunal that observations made in the judgment are only for the purpose of disposal of the appeal. 21. Thus, for us it is clear in the judgment itself that the matter has been sent to the adjudicating authority for afresh decision strictly in accor....