Small Industries Development Bank Of ... vs Harshad Hirji Thakkar
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 135 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority's dismissal of an application for recall as not maintainable is correct where the grounds raised, namely that a Supreme Court order should be interpreted differently, do not fall within the grounds on which recall is permissible under the principles laid down by the Five Member Bench in Union Bank of India v. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian, and where an argument that the earlier order requires a different interpretation is in substance a request for review, which the Tribunal has no power to entertain.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Small Industries Development Bank of India ...Appellant
Versus
Shri Harshad Hirji Thakkar ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Bharti Nawlani, Advocate
For Respondent : ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
17.02.2025 I.A. No. 411 of 2025 This is an application praying for
condonation of 43 days delay in refiling the Appeal. Sufficient ground has
been shown in paragraph 2 of the Application. Re-filing delay is condoned.
Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has been filed
against the order dated 09.10.2024 by which order I.A. No. 4399 of 2024 filed
by the Appellant was dismissed.
The order passed by this National Company Law Tribunal, Court Room
No.1, Mumbai Bench, on 09.10.2024 which is as follows:
"Order Adv. Narendra Singh for the Applicant is present through VC.
I.A. No. 4399/2024 This is an Application seeking recall of the order stating that the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in court on its motion has to be interpreted in different manner. This Bench is of considered view that issue arising from interpretation does not tantamount to rectification of mistake which can be carried out by this Tribunal, but the same falls within the scope of Review which this Tribunal is not empowered to do. In view of this Interlocutory Application 4399 of 2024 is dismissed as not maintainable."
The Application was filed under Section 95(1) by the Appellant against
the Personal Guarantor which came to be dismissed on 04.07.2024 as barred
by time. Subsequent to the said order the I.A. was filed prying for recall. The
ground for recall are now well settled, we may refer to the Five Member Bench
judgment of this Tribunal in Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation
Bank) Vs. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian & Ors. in I.A. No. 3691 of
2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.729 of 2020. The grounds
which are sought to be raised by the Appellant in the I.A. are not covered by
the grounds on which recall can be allowed. We are of the view that the
Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in dismissing the application
for recall as not maintainable. No merit in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) pks/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 135 of 2025 2 of 2
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