Miss Lucy
← All judgments

State Bank Of India vs Mbl Infrastructures Limited & Anr

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal10 August 2023Ashok Bhushan

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A person who was not a party to an appeal, and whose appeal was not allowed to be heard by the tribunal, has no locus to seek recall of the tribunal's judgment in that appeal, since the right to apply for recall is available to a party to the proceedings in which the judgment was rendered. Where the judgment of the tribunal has been merged in an order of the Supreme Court dismissing the civil appeal against it, the tribunal will not entertain an application seeking recall of its own judgment.

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

Judgment

As delivered

+NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHII.A. No. 3401 of 2023in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 539 of 2022In the matter of:

State Bank of India ....Appellant Vs. MBL Infrastructures Ltd and Anr. ...Respondents For Applicant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Manmeet Singh, Mr. Anugrah Robin, Ms. Sadhvi Kumar, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Mr. Aditya Dhupar, Mr. Rachit Wadhwa, Advocates.

ORDER

10.08.2023:

I.A. No. 3401 of 2023:- This is an Application filed by the Applicants-

'IDBI Bank Limited & Ors.' praying for recall of our judgment and order dated

23.05.2023 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.539 of 2022.

2. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.539 of 2022 was filed by the State Bank

of India challenging the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Adjudicating

Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench in I.A. (IB)

626/KB/2021 which was filed by the Resolution Applicant. Certain directions

were issued in the said order of the Adjudicating Authority. Aggrieved by the

said order, State Bank of India has filed the Appeal. After hearing the parties,

we dismissed the Appeal upholding the order of the Adjudicating Authority. 2

3. Shri Abhijeet Sinha, Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the

Applicant is a dissenting Financial Creditor and he was not party to the

Appeal- Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 539 of 2022 or the Application filed

before the Adjudicating Authority.

4. Shri Arun Kathpalia, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents

submits that firstly against the order passed by this Tribunal, a Civil Appeal

No. 4636/2023 was filed by the State Bank of India which Appeal has been

dismissed by order dated 04.08.2023. The judgment having been merged in

the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Civil Appeal, the Application of

Applicant to recall the judgment cannot be entertained. It is further submitted

that IDBI has also filed an Appeal challenging the order of the Adjudicating

Authority which Appeal is lying in defects and has not come further.

5. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that

there are no grounds made out in the Application for recall of the judgment.

The Appeal filed by the SBI was dismissed by this Tribunal by judgement dated

23.05.2023. When the Appeal filed by SBI was dismissed, the Applicant have

no right to file a recall application. More so, as noticed above, the judgment of

this Tribunal having been merged in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

by judgment dated 04.08.2023, which Civil Appeal is dismissed, prayer of the

Applicant cannot be considered.

6. Shri Abhijeet Sinha, Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that

merger does not apply in the facts of the present case. In view of what we have

observed above regarding Applicant having no right to file recall application, it

I.A. No. 3401 of 2023 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 539 of 2022 3

is not necessary for us to express any final opinion on the submissions

regarding merger.

7. We do not find any merit in the Application. Application I.A. No. 3401 of

2023 is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn

I.A. No. 3401 of 2023 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 539 of 2022

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