Case Law Details
Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs Pancard Clubs Ltd. & Ors (NCLAT Delhi)
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, considered an application (I.A. No. 5716 of 2025) filed seeking recall of its earlier judgment dated 21 November 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1528 of 2024. The applicant requested that the Tribunal recall the earlier order, reconsider the merits of the appeal, examine issues relating to an allegedly fraudulent resolution plan and procedural lapses, and tag the matter with Appeal No. 1531 of 2024.
The background of the application concerns Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1528 of 2024, which challenged an order dated 25 April 2024. The appeal had been filed on 12 July 2024, after expiry of the limitation period. An application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 5536 of 2024) was heard by the Tribunal. On 21 November 2024, the Tribunal rejected the request for condonation on the ground that the delay exceeded the condonable period of 15 days prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Consequently, the appeal was also rejected. In the companion matter, Appeal No. 1531 of 2024, the delay was only six days and within the condonable limit.
Following the NCLAT’s rejection, the appellant filed Civil Appeals No. 408–409 of 2025 before the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 21 November 2024. On 24 January 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals after noting that they were not being pressed, as the appellant intended to file a review application before the NCLAT. The Supreme Court did not make any observations granting liberty for such a review.
In support of the recall application, counsel for the applicant argued that certain relevant grounds for condonation—including exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act—and allegations of fraud could not be raised earlier. It was contended that these grounds justified recall of the Tribunal’s earlier judgment.
Opposing the application, the respondent raised two objections. First, it was argued that the Supreme Court had already dismissed the appeals against the NCLAT’s November 2024 order without granting liberty to reopen the matter before the NCLAT. Therefore, the recall application was not maintainable. Second, it was submitted that the grounds now being raised—including reliance on Section 14 of the Limitation Act and allegations of fraud—had already been urged before the Supreme Court, as reflected in the grounds of appeal. Since the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeals, the respondent argued that the applicant could not be allowed to raise the same issues again before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal examined the submissions and reviewed relevant precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni (2024) 6 SCC 767 and its own earlier decision in Union Bank of India v. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 729 of 2020), which outline the limited grounds on which a judgment may be recalled.
Applying these principles, the Tribunal held that the present application did not fall within the permissible grounds for recall. It observed that the allegations of fraud raised by the applicant pertained to the conduct of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the alleged fraudulent nature of the resolution plan. Such issues, the Tribunal clarified, were not related to the order dated 21 November 2024, which dealt solely with condonation of delay. Since the purported fraud did not concern the delay condonation order itself, it could not justify recall of that order.
The Tribunal further noted that the Supreme Court had already dismissed the appeal against the Tribunal’s earlier order and had not granted any liberty for reopening the issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that there was no basis to entertain the recall request.
Concluding its analysis, the NCLAT ruled that none of the grounds advanced by the applicant justified recall of the 21 November 2024 order. Accordingly, the recall application (I.A. No. 5716 of 2025) was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE NCLAT JUDGMENT/ORDER
I.A No. 5716 of 2025: This is an application praying for recall of our judgment dated 21.11.2024. In the application, following prayers have been made:-
“a. Pass an order recalling the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1528 of 2024; and/or
b. After recalling the order dated 21.11.2024, reconsider the merits of the appeal and the legal issues raised, particularly the impact of the fraudulent Resolution Plan and the procedural lapses; and/or
c. Tag the present Appeal with Appeal No.1531 of 2024. and/or
d. Pass any other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in with the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2. This application has been filed in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1528 of 2024 which was filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 25.04.2024. There was a delay in filing the appeal and the application for condonation of delay came to be heard by this Tribunal on 21.11.2024 and we passed the following order on 21.11.2024 with respect to I.A No. 5536 of 2024:-
“21.11.2024: I.A. No. 5536 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1528 of 2024 and I.A. No. 5543 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1531 of 2024: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1528 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 25.04.2024. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1531 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 06.06.2024 passed in IA No.2923 of 2023. In both the appeals, application for condonation of delay has been filed.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1528 of 2024 has been filed against order dated 25.04.2024 and the appeal has been e-filed on 12.07.2024. The thirty days’ limitation period came to an end on 25.05.2024 and the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1528 of 2024 against order dated 25.04.2024 has been filed beyond the condonable period. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that since the Appellant has filed an IA No.293 of 2023 for recall of the order dated 25.04.2024, which has been decided on 06.06.2024, hence, the delay in filing the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1528 of 2024 may be condoned. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the appeal against order dated 25.04.2024 has been filed beyond the condonable period, hence, the same cannot be condoned. In so far as Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1531 of 2024 is concerned, there is delay of only 6 days i.e. within the condonable period.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that delay condonation application I.A. No. 5536 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1528 of 2024 praying for condonation of delay which is beyond 15 days cannot be accepted. I.A. No. 5536 of 2024 is rejected. In result, memo of appeal of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1528 of 2024 challenging order dated 25.04.2024 is also rejected.
……….”
3. Challenging the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by this court, the Appellant filed a Civil No. 408-409 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which appeals were dismissed on 24.01.2025 by following orders:-
“1. These appeals are not pressed as the appellant Securities and Exchange Board of India intend to go back to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal with a review application.
2. We do not say anything in aforesaid regard.
3. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
4. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
4. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant has filed this application for recalling of our judgment. Ld. counsel for the Appellant submits that in the application for condonation of delay I.A No. 5536 of 2024 filed in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1528 of 2024 relevant grounds for condonation including exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act could not be raised, hence, the order needs to be recalled. He has also raised fraud as a ground.
5. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent raised two objections to the maintainability of the application. He submits that appeal against the order dated 21.11.2024 has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not granted any liberty to the Appellant to file this application. This application cannot be entertained. He has further submitted that there is no ground for recall. He submits that before the Hon’ble Supreme court in the appeal itself the Appellant has raised the ground of Section 14 of the limitation act as well as the fraud. He has referred to ground question of law (B) and (P). He submits that after the dismissal of the appeal, the said grounds cannot be permitted to reurge.
6. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.
7. The present application is filed for recalling of the judgment. The ground for recall of judgment is well settled. We refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr. (2024) 6 SCC 767 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Union Bank of India vs. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 729 of 2020.
8. We are of the view that the present recall application does not fall in any of the grounds which are accepted grounds for recall of the judgment. The argument of fraud which is sought to be raised by the Appellant are not with respect to the order dated 21.11.2024 or the application for delay condonation. His submissions are with regard to CIRP being fraudulent which is not a question which can be examined while deciding the application for condonation of delay.
9. As noted above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already dismissed the appeal against the order dated 21.11.2024 and has not granted any liberty.
10. We are of the view that the prayers made in the application cannot be granted. The application is dismissed.
Author Bio
