Sarita Jain vs Manoj Kulshrestha Interim Resolution ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal10 July 2025Ashok Bhushan

CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2289 of 2024

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The grounds on which an Appellate Tribunal may recall its own order are those settled in Sri Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb: discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not have been produced earlier; a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason. The Tribunal, as a body having inherent power to recall but no power to review its own orders, may recall an order only on those grounds; a prayer for a fresh factual reassessment, without any such ground being shown, does not warrant recall of a final judgment.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHII.A. No. 3326 of 2025 inCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2289 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Paritosh Jain ...Appellants Versus Manoj Kulshrestha ...Respondents IRP for Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vinayak Mithal, Mr. Paritosh Jain and Mr. Apoorv Saini, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Ritin Rai Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari and Ms. Ankita Gupta, Advocates.

WITH I.A. No. 3329 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2290 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Sangeeta Jain ...Appellants Versus Manoj Kulshrestha, ...Respondents IRP for Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.

WITH I.A. No. 3319 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2293 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Akshat Jain ...Appellants Versus Manoj Kulshrestha, ...Respondents IRP for Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd. Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vinayak Mithal, Mr. Paritosh Jain and Mr. Apoorv Saini, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Ritin Rai Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari and Ms. Ankita Gupta, Advocates.

WITH I.A. No. 3325 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2294 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Divyansh Jain ...Appellants Versus Manoj Kulshrestha, ...Respondents IRP for Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.

WITH I.A. No. 3324 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2295 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Sarita Jain ...Appellants Versus Manoj Kulshrestha, ...Respondents IRP for Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.

2 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 2289, 2290, 2293, 2294, 2295, 2296 & 2297 of 2024 WITH I.A. No. 3327 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2296 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Meenu Jain ...Appellants Versus Manoj Kulshrestha, ...Respondents IRP for Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.

WITH I.A. No. 3328 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2297 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Niharika Jain ...Appellants Versus Manoj Kulshrestha, ...Respondents IRP for Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

10.07.2025: These applications have been filed in the appeal praying for

recall of the judgment/ order dated 23.04.2025 by which after hearing Ld.

Counsel for the appellants as well as Ld. Counsel for the respondents all the

3 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 2289, 2290, 2293, 2294, 2295, 2296 & 2297 of 2024 appeals were dismissed. Prayers in the present applications are to the

following effects:-

"A. RELIEF SOUGHT In the interest of justice, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal be pleased to:

i. Allow the present Application;

ii. Kindly recall the order dated 23.04.2025 and allow for a fair and comprehensive reassessment of the factual matrix, ensuring justice is served, the inconvenience caused by maintaining the existing order far outweighs any inconvenience in recalling it.

iii. Such other and further orders be passed as facts and circumstances of the case may require."

The applications prayers for recall of the judgment, the grounds for

recall of the judgment are well settled. We refer the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in "Sri Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb & Ors. (1999) 4

SCC 396" where the following was laid down :-

"59. Generally speaking, review can be permitted, if found in the statute by the competent judicial forum. Review can be filed, if there is discovery of new and Important matter or evidence, which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review or could not be produced by him at any time when the decree was passed or order made or some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason.

60. We consciously note that the NCLT & NCLAT have inherent powers to recall order but have no power to review its order."

4 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 2289, 2290, 2293, 2294, 2295, 2296 & 2297 of 2024 In the present appeals, Ld. Senior Counsel has addressed submissions

and after hearing at length the counsel for the appellant and respondent; the

appeals were dismissed. We do not find any ground which is covered for recall

of the judgment. With the above observations, all the applications stand

dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) harleen/NN

5 of 5 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 2289, 2290, 2293, 2294, 2295, 2296 & 2297 of 2024

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