Securities And Exchange Board Of India vs Pancard Club Ltd
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1528 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A judgment or order of the Tribunal may be recalled only on the grounds recognised as accepted grounds for recall, and a ground of recall must relate to the order sought to be recalled or to the application it decided; an allegation that the corporate insolvency resolution process is fraudulent is not a ground for recalling an order which refused condonation of delay in filing an appeal, since it is not a question that can be examined in deciding such an application. Where the Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against an order without granting liberty to file a further application, the Tribunal will not entertain a subsequent application to recall that order which seeks to re-agitate the same matter.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
I.A. No. 5716 of 2025 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1528 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Appellant
Versus
Pancard Clubs Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Sr. Adv. wih Abhishek Baid, Praneet Das, Mohit Kumar, Nimish Kumar, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mohit D. Ram, Nayan Gupta, Adv. for R3 Mr. Shivam S., Adv. Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Vatsala Kak, Shaurya Shyam, Sagar Thabbar, Adv. for R2
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
03.11.2025 : I.A No. 5716 of 2025: This is an application praying for
recall of our judgment dated 21.11.2024. In the application, following prayers
have been made:-
"a. Pass an order recalling the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1528 of 2024; and/or b. After recalling the order dated 21.11.2024, reconsider the merits of the appeal and the legal issues raised, particularly the impact of the fraudulent Resolution Plan and the procedural lapses; and/or c. Tag the present Appeal with Appeal No.1531 of 2024. and/or d. Pass any other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in with the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. This application has been filed in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1528 of 2024 which
was filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 25.04.2024. There was a delay in filing the appeal and the application for condonation of delay came
to be heard by this Tribunal on 21.11.2024 and we passed the following order
on 21.11.2024 with respect to I.A No. 5536 of 2024:-
"21.11.2024: I.A. No. 5536 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1528 of 2024 and I.A. No. 5543 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1531 of 2024: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1528 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 25.04.2024. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1531 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 06.06.2024 passed in IA No.2923 of 2023. In both the appeals, application for condonation of delay has been filed.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1528 of 2024 has been filed against order dated 25.04.2024 and the appeal has been e-filed on 12.07.2024. The thirty days' limitation period came to an end on 25.05.2024 and the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1528 of 2024 against order dated 25.04.2024 has been filed beyond the condonable period. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that since the Appellant has filed an IA No.293 of 2023 for recall of the order dated 25.04.2024, which has been decided on 06.06.2024, hence, the delay in filing the Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1528 of 2024 may be condoned. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the appeal against order dated 25.04.2024 has been filed beyond the condonable period, hence, the same cannot be condoned. In so far as Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1531 of 2024 is concerned, there is delay of only 6 days i.e. within the condonable period.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that delay condonation application I.A. No. 5536 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1528 of 2024 praying for condonation of delay which is beyond 15 days cannot be accepted. I.A. No. 5536 of 2024 is rejected. In result, memo of appeal of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1528 of 2024 challenging order dated 25.04.2024 is also rejected.
........."
3. Challenging the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by this court, the
Appellant filed a Civil No. 408-409 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
which appeals were dismissed on 24.01.2025 by following orders:-
"1. These appeals are not pressed as the appellant Securities and Exchange Board of India intend to go back to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal with a review application.
2. We do not say anything in aforesaid regard.
3. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
4. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."
4. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant has filed this application for recalling
of our judgment. Ld. counsel for the Appellant submits that in the application
for condonation of delay I.A No. 5536 of 2024 filed in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1528
of 2024 relevant grounds for condonation including exclusion of time under
Section 14 of the Limitation Act could not be raised, hence, the order needs
to be recalled. He has also raised fraud as a ground.
5. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent raised two objections to the
maintainability of the application. He submits that appeal against the order
dated 21.11.2024 has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme court and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has not granted any liberty to the Appellant to file
this application. This application cannot be entertained. He has further
submitted that there is no ground for recall. He submits that before the
Hon'ble Supreme court in the appeal itself the Appellant has raised the
ground of Section 14 of the limitation act as well as the fraud. He has referred
to ground question of law (B) and (P). He submits that after the dismissal of
the appeal, the said grounds cannot be permitted to reurge.
6. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the
record.
7. The present application is filed for recalling of the judgment. The
ground for recall of judgment is well settled. We refer the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Greater Noida Industrial Development
Authority Vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr. (2024) 6 SCC 767 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Union Bank of India vs. Dinkar T.
Venkatasubramanian & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 729 of 2020.
8. We are of the view that the present recall application does not fall in
any of the grounds which are accepted grounds for recall of the judgment.
The argument of fraud which is sought to be raised by the Appellant are not
with respect to the order dated 21.11.2024 or the application for delay
condonation. His submissions are with regard to CIRP being fraudulent which
is not a question which can be examined while deciding the application for
condonation of delay.
9. As noted above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already dismissed the
appeal against the order dated 21.11.2024 and has not granted any liberty.
10. We are of the view that the prayers made in the application cannot be
granted. The application is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] The Chairperson
[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