TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....value of Rs. 10 each which constituted 58.43% of the total paid up capital of Respondent No. 1. 3. Respondent No. 2 i.e. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. filed an application under Section 7 of the Code for initiation of CIRP in respect of the alleged default of Rs. 2789.42 Cr. by the CD i.e. Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. which was ultimately admitted with the ratio of 2:1 vide order dated 27.09.2022. 4. The order dated 27.09.2022 was challenged by the Appellant by way of appeal under Section 61 of the Code which was dismissed on 26.11.2024. The order dated 26.11.2024 was challenged by the Appellant by way of an appeal under Section 62 of the Code before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was filed vide diary no. 2109 of 2025 on 11.01.2025. 5. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the appeal was returned to him by the registry of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.01.2025 indicating the defects therein. The appeal was not refiled and large of number of appeals filed by various other Appellants with various diary numbers were put up for hearing before the Hon'ble Chamber Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which an order was passed on 25.04.2025 that "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... significant financial stakeholder in the matter in hand. The Member Technical (author of the judgment) in his capacity as a director on the board of HUDCO was allegedly involved in decision making processes related to the CD including critical matters concerning the financing of the project and management of the corporation. 13. It is further averred in the application that the Applicant/Appellant at the time of hearing of the appeal before this court, never raised the issue of likelihood of bias on the part of the author of judgment because he learnt about the said issue afterwards. 14. It is also submitted that the said Technical Member of the Tribunal has recused from hearing of two connected appeals i.e. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1496 of 2023 and CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1405-1406 of 2022 on 08.05.2025 and 29.04.2025 respectively. 15. In the end, it is submitted that the Appellant has raised the issue of likelihood of bias, therefore, this application deserves to be allowed and the order dated 26.11.2024 deserves to be recalled. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon a decision of the House of Lords in the matter of Pinochet, In re (1999) UKHL 1 to contend that "the funda....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the NCLAT because most of the cases are being filed either by the bank or against them. It is also submitted that Govt. Nominee Director are not paid any remuneration by the Company. 20. The SGI for Respondent No. 2 has relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has first referred to a decision of Manak Lal (Shir), Adv. Vs. Prem Chand Singhvi & Ors., 1957 SCC OnLine SC 10 and has referred to para 8 and 9 of the said judgment which are reproduced as under:- "8. The next question which falls to be considered is whether it was open to the appellant to take this objection for the first time before- the High Court. In other words, has he or has he not waived his objection to the presence of Shri Chhangani in the tribunal? Shri Daphtary does not seriously contest the position that the objection could have been effectively waived. The alleged bias in a member of the tribunal does not render the proceedings invalid if it is shown that the objection against the -presence of the member in question had not been their by the party even though the party knew about the circumstances giving rise to the allegations about the alleged bias and was aware of his right t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, the following principles emerge; 25.1. If a Judge has a financial interest in the outcome of a case, he is automatically disqualified from hearing the case. 25.2. In cases where the interest of the Judge in the case is other than financial, then the disqualification is not automatic but an enquiry is required whether the existence of such an interest disqualifies the Judge tested in the light of either on the principle of "real danger" or "reasonable apprehension" of bias. 25.3. The Pinochet case added a new category i.e that the Judge is automatically disqualified from hearing a case where the Judge is interested in a cause which is being promoted by one of the parties to the case. 26. It is nobody's case that, in the case at hand, Justice Khehar had any pecuniary interest or any other interest falling under the second of the above-mentioned categories. By the very nature of the case, no such interest can arise at all. 27. The question is whether the principle of law laid down in Pinochet case is attracted. In other words, whether Justice Khehar can be said to be sharing any interest which one of the parties is promoting. All the pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s raised that Justice Hoffman should not hear his case because his wife was an active member of the Amnesty International Charity Ltd. and leading the campaign against Senator Pinochet. In this background, it was held in that case that there could be a personal bias or its likelihood in the mind of Hoffman because of the active participation of his wife. No such specific allegation is there in the present case because nothing has been brought before this Court that Technical Member was instrumental either in grant of loan or rejecting the grant of loan. It is simply alleged by the Appellant that author of the judgment/ Technical Member was a nominee director on the board of HUDCO. 23. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 24. The Appellant has filed this application on 18.05.2025 for recalling of the order dated 26.11.2024 by which the appeal filed by the Appellant against the admission of the application under Section 7 against it was dismissed. The appellant challenged the order dated 26.11.2024 by way of statutory appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide diary no. 2109 of 2025 on 11.01.2025. The defects in the appeal w....