TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1459
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Narula, Adv., Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv., Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Adv., Mr. Yashas J, Adv., Ms. Gauri Rajput, Adv., Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv., Mr. Paras Mohan Sharma, Adv., Ms. Ekta Choudhary, AOR, Ms. Rushali Sikand, Adv., Mr. Ankur Anand, Adv. JUDGMENT PER VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. The present Miscellaneous Application No. 1256 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the "MA") has been filed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12264 of 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the "SLP") seeking recall of the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by this Court, whereby the SLP filed against the judgment and order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 3916 of 2022 came to be dismissed. The case set up in the MA is that subsequent developments, including the alleged non-disclosure of the proposal for a One Time Settlement (hereinafter referred to as the "OTS"), the eventual settlement arrived at between the secured creditor and the corporate debtor, and the withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as the "CIRP") under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 3916 of 2022. By judgment and order dated 06.05.2024, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. The High Court held, in substance, that the Agreement to Sell dated 13.08.2021 was itself contingent in nature, inasmuch as its performance was predicated upon the acceptance of the OTS by the Bank. The High Court noted that the suit property was mortgaged, that the Bank was not a party to the Agreement to Sell, and that without the Bank's approval to the OTS, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were not in a position to convey title in respect of the property. On that reasoning, the High Court held that no prima facie case for grant of interim injunction was made out and that, at the highest, the applicant could claim recovery of the amounts paid by it, but could not, at that stage, insist upon specific performance of an agreement the performance of which had become uncertain in the absence of the Bank's approval. 2.5. It appears that the underlying suit for specific performance, being Civil Suit No. 1248 of 2022, continues to remain pending, the proceedings before this Court having arisen from orders passed on the inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view that the present MA does not merit acceptance. 4. The first obstacle in the way of the applicant is one of maintainability. The order dated 25.02.2025, recall of which is sought, is not an executory order. It merely records that this Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and, accordingly, dismissed the SLP. The present MA does not seek correction of any clerical or arithmetical error. Nor is it a case where directions contained in an executory order of this Court have become impossible of implementation by reason of subsequent events. The settled position is that a post-disposal miscellaneous application can be entertained only in rare situations of that nature. The present case does not fall within that limited class. 5. In Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. (2024) 19 SCC 353, this Court has held in clear terms that, once a matter stands disposed of, the Court becomes functus officio and does not retain jurisdiction to entertain an application except in the narrow situations recognized by law. The same position was reiterated in Ajay Kumar Jain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 INSC 958, where this C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion is a serious one and cannot be invoked on the basis of assertion alone. In the present case, the order dated 25.02.2025 is a non-speaking order dismissing the SLP. The order dated 25.02.2025 does not indicate that the dismissal turned upon any specific representation which is now alleged to have been suppressed. The material now relied upon, even if taken at its highest, may at best furnish the applicant with a separate grievance arising out of subsequent or parallel proceedings. It does not persuade us to hold, in the present proceedings, that the order dated 25.02.2025 itself was procured by practicing fraud on this Court. 9. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The challenge to the judgment and order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the High Court had to be considered on the record and circumstances as they then stood. Subsequent developments in another forum, howsoever strongly relied upon by the applicant, cannot retroactively render the earlier adjudicatory exercise vulnerable in a disposed of SLP. A later event may, in a given case, furnish an independent cause of action. It cannot, by itself, be used to reopen finality in proceedings of a different character and ori....