2025 (11) TMI 1560

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e proceedings under the Company Petition under any of the provisions contained under the Companies Act and I&B Code, are governed by its procedures, which are regulated by Section 424 of the Companies Act, which itself under sub section (3) of Section 424, prescribes for a procedure for execution of the orders passed by the Tribunal. The question would be; "As to whether an exception could be carved out to file an application for recall in a decided petition, to enforce an order, in a manner to avoid filing of an execution proceedings as against the order passed by the Tribunal in favour of the recall applicant". The brief facts, as it engages consideration, are as follows: 2. The Appellant herein happens to be the Operational Credito....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se decree or an order, which in the case happens to be the order of 25.09.2018. 4. We are of a confirm view that, such an order will fall to be an order deciding the rights, which ought to have been executed as per law. And in an event, if there is any violation of non-compliance of the conditions of the compromise order, that could not have been permitted to be enforced by an invocation of Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, for seeking an exercise of inherent powers for recall of the order, which the applicant had not been able to get it executed. 5. In fact, the recall preferred by the Appellant, at its inception, could not be taken as to be an alternative basis for enforcement of the order dated 25.09.2018, which has finally closed the pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y Petition in which the decision has been taken finally on merits by an order of 25.09.2018 and that when it was order induced to be passed at the behest of the Appellant, and was accept him, having attained finality. 7. Be that as it may. MA No. 67/2019 was allowed and the Company Petition was taken up once again on merits. It was yet again for the second time, that a compromise was entered and the Company Petition was disposed of by an order passed on 10.12.2019. The said order dated 10.12.2019 is extracted here under: Counsel for both the parties are present. A joint memo of compromise has been filed by the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor seeking for withdrawal of this Petition as the Corporate Debtor has issued....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant to revive the Company Petition, if the settlement has referred to, in the order dated 10.12.2019, is not complied with, but however the said commitment of making the payment of amount due as made in the compromise for revival of the Company Petition, was never taken as to be the basis for withdrawing of the Restoration application except for, it was observed that it will be open for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for the same cause of action by filing a fresh claim. It is under that latitude granted by the order of 10.12.2019, the second Restoration Application was alleged to have been preferred and the same has been rejected. 9. The Learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order on 29.06.2022, has clear in its exp....