Col A Khanna Sm Retd vs Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited
- CitationCOMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO. 203/2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may recall its own order only where (i) the order was passed without jurisdiction, (ii) it was obtained by fraud or collusion, (iii) there is a fundamental procedural error, such as a necessary party not being served, (iv) the order was passed on a misunderstanding of facts resulting in prejudice to a party, or (v) there has been a gross failure of justice. An application seeking recall of a dismissal order does not succeed unless one of these grounds is shown to exist; where none is established, the application is rejected and no interference is warranted. Clerical or factual errors in an order, such as a misstated date of an earlier judgment or a misspelt forum name, are correctable by the Tribunal on application and do not by themselves warrant recall of the order containing them. A prayer already pending before the National Company Law Tribunal in other applications, and merely adjourned, is not for this Tribunal to determine in appeal against the adjournment, and the appellate Tribunal will not enter into such prayers.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI IA NO.6314 OF 2025 IN COMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO. 203/2025 (Arising out of from the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (Principal Bench) in C.A. No.01/2023 and CP No.71/2020) In the matter of: Col. Ashish Khanna, SM (Retd) 1524, Park View Apartment, Sector- 29, Noida- 201 301 Applicant
Vs 1. Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited 2nd Safdarjung Road New Delhi -110011 secydgc@gmail.com Respondent No. 1 2. Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs Through Regional Director (Northern Region) B - 2 Wing, 2nd Floor Pandit Deen Dayal UpadhyayAntodaya Bhawan CGO Complex, New Delhi - 110003 Respondent No. 2
For Appellant: Col. A Khanna, SM (Retd) applicant in person. Mr. Adwait Sirohi with SFIO complainant Ms Niji Sapra in person.
For Respondent: Mr Raunak Dhillon, Ms Isha Malik, Mr Jeezon Pakhliwal, Advocates for Union of India. Mr Prateek Kumar, Ms Moha Paranjpe, Mr Yazas Ahal, Ms Raveena Rai, Advocates for Delhi Gymkhana Club. 2
ORDER
This application is filed by the appellant/applicant under Rule 11 of
NCLAT Rules, 2016 seeking recall of the dismissal order dated 08.09.2025
passed by this Tribunal. The grievances of the applicant are (a) date of
judgement in Company Appeal (AT) No.242/2024 is wrongly mentioned as
21.10.2024 in the corrected copy of order dated 02.09.2025, which is factually
incorrect and the exact date of order is 18.12.2024; (b) the order dated
08.09.2025 records there is nothing pending as on 08.09.2025 but whereas
Contempt Case (AT) No.21/2025 was pending in the same Bench prior to its
transfer to Court No.II; (c) there were five prayers in Company Appeal (AT)
No.203/2025 but whereas only interim reliefs were taken up and not granted
qua removal of President for AGM fraud and intimidation; and qua execution of
order dated 15.03.2022 passed by Ld. NCLT entitling SFIO investigation on AGM
Fraud and (d) no finding on perjury on 24.04.2025 or NCLT contumacious
refusal to take on record Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissal orders/notices.
2. Heard.
3. The grievances of the applicant viz the date of judgement of Company
Appeal (AT) No.242/2024 was wrongly mentioned as 18.09.2024 in the order
dated 29.08.2025 and even in its corrected order dated 02.09.2025 it was
mentioned as 21.10.2024; but whereas the correct date of the said judgement is
18.12.2024. There is no issue in correcting the date of judgement in orders dated 3
29.08.2025 and dated 02.09.2025; as 18.12.2024; instead of 18.09.2024 and
21.10.2024 as above. Thus stands corrected and be read accordingly.
4. Qua grievance (b) viz it was wrongly noted in the order dated 08.09.2025
that nothing is pending before this Tribunal but whereas a Contempt Case No.
21/2025 was pending. However, we find Contempt Case No. 21/2025 was for an
another order than of order dated 01.04.2022 and whereas the order dated
08.09.2025 only noted there was nothing pending against order dated
01.04.2022 before it, hence (b) doesn't require any interference.
5. Regarding (c) that there were five prayers in CA(AT) No.203/2025 but only
interim reliefs were considered; we intend to note evidently the appeal bearing
No.CA(AT) No.203/2025 was against an order dated 24th April, 2025 vide which
an adjournment was granted to hearing of various applications mentioned in
Order dated 24.04.2025. The hearing of all such applications was rather
adjourned to dated 09.10.2025. Now the prayers made in the appeal were all
already pending before the Ld. NCLT in one or another application(s) so filed and
only its adjournment to 09.10.2025 was rather challenged before this Tribunal.
It was for these reasons it was considered not necessary by Hon'ble Court No.1
to enter into such prayers for which applications were already pending before
the Ld. NCLT. We also see no reason to interfere on grievance (c) either.
6. Qua submissions on perjury, it is evident to note a similar application was
filed by the appellant on 23.10.2024 before the Ld. NCLAT wherein request was
to charge Mr. Rajiv Hora for making false statements on affidavit dated 4
12.09.2024 (filed to Reply to IA No.5502/2024) and further to direct the Ld. NCLT
to pronounce orders in perjury complaint. Such application was rather
dismissed on 18.12.2024 and hence was not taken up by this Tribunal and
rightly so.
7. Lastly the applicant urged the order dated 08.09.2025 needs correction in
para 14, 8th line, wherein instead of NCLT; NCLNT is recorded. Hence the word
NCLNT stands corrected to NCLT in the order dated 08.09.2025 and be read
accordingly.
8. The applicant then had taken us to various government notings, more
specifically at pages No.193 to 214 of his appeal, but as submitted these are also
part of the applications filed by the applicant before the Ld. NCLT, hence we
refrain to comment on the same. Thus we find no failure of justice has occasioned
vide order dated 08.09.2025. There is no doubt to the preposition of law that
this Tribunal has a power to recall its own order but such power can be exercised
only when (i) order passed is without jurisdiction; (ii) it is obtained by practicing
fraud or collusion; (iii) there exists a fundamental procedural error viz necessary
party not being served; (iv) the order being passed on misunderstanding of facts
which resulted in prejudice to a party; (v) and gross failure of justice.
9. We do not find any of the ingredients of (i) to (v) as above; necessary for
recall of the judgment/order dated 08.09.2025, present in this application, and
hence we are not inclined to allow this application and we dispose it of as above.
However, we request the Ld. NCLT to take up the applications so filed by the 5
applicant in a time bound manner and to hear and dispose it, as expeditiously
as possible.
(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Member (Judicial)
(Mr Indevar Pandey) Member (Technical) Dated:22-12-2025 bm
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