Amit Goyal vs Vikram Kumar & Ors
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 645 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An order of the Adjudicating Authority approving a resolution plan, once affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal and by the Supreme Court, cannot be recalled by the Adjudicating Authority on a subsequent application seeking its recall, and an application seeking such recall is to be rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Amit Goyal ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Vikram Kumar & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 06.05.2026: This appeal has been filed against the order dated
20.02.2026 by which I.A No. 783 of 2026 filed by the Appellant for recalling
of the order dated 24.07.2020 has been rejected.
2. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 20.02.2026 has made
following observations :-
"This application has been filed seeking to recall and set aside the order dated 24.07.2020 passed by this Adjudicating Authority in CAA-41/ND/2019.
It may be mentioned that the resolution plan was approved by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 24.07.2020 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble NCLAT in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 689 of 2020 on 14.09.2020 and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4220 of 2020 on 12.01.2021 Entertaining the said application at the stage, will not only amount to travesty of justice but will open Pandora's box. IA dismissed."
3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there were various
grounds on which recall was prayed for but the said prayer has not been
looked into.
4. We have looked into the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the
Adjudicating Authority having already noticed that order of plan
approval application has been affirmed by the NCLAT and by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, hence, the application was rejected.
5. We are of the view that no error has been committed by the
Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the recall application, orders having
been affirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be allowed to be
recalled.
6. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that there are
several concealments in the appeal.
7. In view of the fact that we are dismissing the appeal we need not
go into the issue of concealment. The appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free