Earthin Projects Ltd vs Indu Projects Limited & Ors
- CitationCivil Appeal No. 579 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's only stated ground is that the earlier order dated 12.01.2024 has merged in the Supreme Court's order dated 25.01.2024, which dismissed the statutory appeal against it; the review/recall application therefore has no subject-matter and is not maintainable.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Earthin Projects Ltd. ... Applicant
Vs
Indu Projects Ltd. & 4 Ors. ... Respondents
Present:
For Applicant : Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. VVSN. Raju, Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr. MV. Swaroop, Advocate for R3 Mr. Pranava Charan, Advocate for R4
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 04.07.2024: This application has been filed by the
Applicant/Appellant under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 for
recalling of the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2024 passed by
this Court in CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 201 of 2023.
The order dated 12.01.2024 was challenged by the
Applicant/Appellant by way of statutory appeal bearing Civil Appeal
No. 579 of 2024 filed under Section 62 of the Code, 2016 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 25.01.2024 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the following order:-
"1 We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement dated 12 January 2024 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No 201 of 2023. 2 The Civil Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of"
We have heard Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant and are of
the considered opinion that since the order dated 12.01.2024 in
which the Application for recalling has been filed has already merged
in the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Civil Appeal No. 579 of 2024, therefore, the present application is
totally mis-conceived and not maintainable.
Hence, the present application is hereby dismissed though
without any order as to costs.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)
Sheetal
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