Royal India Corporation Limited vs Nandkishor Vishnupant Deshpande ...

1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI IA NO.5191 OF 2024 IN COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(INS) NO.137 OF 2021 In the matter of: Royal India Corporation Ltd Appellant Vs Nandkishor Vishnupanth Deshpande, Resolution Professional & Ors Respondent

For Appellant:Mr Sanchar Anand, Ms Deeksha Gaur, Advocates.

For Respondent:Mr Kaustav Som, Advocate for Liquidator. Mr. Kunal Kanungo, Ms Tanushree Sejani, Mr Atishay Jain, Advocates.

ORDER

HYBRID MODE

31.08.2026: IA NO.5191 OF 2024: This application is moved by the appellant

under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 seeking recall of order dated 06.05.2024

passed by this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.137/2021. It is the

submission of the learned counsel for the appellant there are two grave mistakes

in the said order dated 06.05.2024; the first being the impugned order relies

upon an order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Customs

which was never part of the record of the Ld. NCLT and the second is that the

Resolution Professional has not recorded his opinion under Regulation 35A of

IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016.

2

2. We have gone through the judgement dated 06.05.2024 which is subject

matter of recall today. So far as the first objection viz the order dated 04.02.2021

ought not to have been relied upon, we note besides the said order, the reply of

the Resolution Professional as well as other facts necessary are noted in the order

dated 06.05.2024 as is evident from para 10.5 of the said order as under:-

"10.5 xxxxx We note that no books of accounts were made available to the Resolution Professional by Corporate Debtor for this period. We also note that Statutory Auditor has also stated that Books of Accounts were not made available to him to conduct statutory audit. We also note that Resolution Professional has reported to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) that no inventory, corresponding to transaction shown by the Appellant was found by Resolution Professional. This is a case where the outstanding of Appx. Rs.158 Cr was brought down to Rs.31 Cr by alleged entries so as to reduce the amount due to the Corporate Debtor thereby reducing likelihood of recovery, causing loss to the creditors of the Corporate Debtor."

3. Further it is to be noted the show cause notice by the DRI was issued on

21.11.2019 on same grounds and was a part of the record of the Ld. NCLT and

such notice disclose all such allegations against the appellant herein. Secondly

qua the compliance of Regulations 35A (Supra) we note the said issue has since

been discussed in the judgement dated 06.05.2024, more specifically in paras 6

to 9 and para 10.1 wherein the impugned order notes the Resolution Professional

had informed CoC there are no matching assets/inventory with the Corporate

Debtor and it was only thereafter an application under Section 66 of IBC, 2016

was filed; thus showing the Resolution Professional had complied with 3

Regulation 35A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons),

Regulations, 2016.

4. Thus the contentions raised before us have already been discussed in the

order dated 06.05.2024. Further admittedly Civil Appeal Dy No.29972/2024

was also filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court, but was dismissed in default on

18.11.2024. Thus once the appeal against this impugned judgement has been

dismissed and further the contentions raised in the recall application have been

duly noted in the order dated 06.05.2024 itself and dealt with, we are not

inclined to recall the judgement dated 06.05.2024, more specifically, in view of

the law relating to recall as enumerated in Col. Ashish Khanna, SM (Retd) Vs

Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd, Company Appeal (AT) No.203/2025 dated

22.12.2025 as under:-

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.

5. In the present case none of five conditions enumerated as precursor to

recall of order are present and thus there is no case made out for recall of order

dated 06.05.2024.

4 6. The IA is, dismissed, accordingly.

(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Officiating Chairperson

(Mr. Barun Mitra) Member (Technical)

(Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical) Bm/md