AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an application for recall of the judgment passed by this Tribunal in Contempt Case (AT) No. 18/2024 in the matter of ‘Ashok Kriplani’ Vs. ‘T. Krishna Valli & Anr.’.
We have heard Mr. Ashok Kriplani, applicant appearing in person.
This contempt application was decided by judgment of this Tribunal on 06.01.2025. In paragraph 32 following was observed:
“32.We, thus, do not find that any contempt has been committed by Adjudicating Authority in admitting Section 7 Application by order dated 24.08.2023 with respect to Project Samhita of the CD. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions, we do not find any ground to initiate any contempt proceedings against the Adjudicating Authority. The Contempt Application is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order be forwarded to Adjudicating Authority as well as Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India.”
The order was passed after hearing applicant, Ashok Kriplani, who has appeared in the contempt application. This application has been filed praying for recall of the judgment dated 06.01.2025. Mr. Kriplani appearing for the applicant points out that the judgment passed by this Tribunal is without jurisdiction and erroneous and needs to be recalled.
The ground for recall of the judgment is well settled. This Tribunal in its judgment in `Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank)’ Vs. `Mr. Dinkar T. Venkatsubramanian & Ors.’ in I.A. No. 3961/2022 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 729/2020 as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority’ Vs. ‘Prabjit Singh Soni’, reported in (2024) 6 SCC 767 has laid down the ground on which recall can be ordered. It is useful to refer paragraph 50 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
“50.In light of the discussion above, what emerges is, a court or a tribunal, in absence of any provision to the contrary, has inherent power to recall an order to secure the ends of justice and/or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Neither the IBC nor the Regulations framed thereunder, in any way, prohibit, exercise of such inherent power. Rather, Section 60(5)(c) IBC, which opens with a non obstante clause, empowers NCLT (the adjudicating authority) to entertain or dispose of any question of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person under the IBC. Further, Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 preserves the inherent power of the Tribunal. Therefore, even in absence of a specific provision empowering the Tribunal to recall its order, the Tribunal has power to recall its order. However, such power is to be exercised sparingly, and not as a tool to rehear the matter. Ordinarily, an application for recall of an order is maintainable on limited grounds, inter alia, where:
(a)the order is without jurisdiction;
(b)the party aggrieved with the order is not served with notice of the proceedings in which the order under recall has been passed; and
(c)the order has been obtained by misrepresentation of facts or by playing fraud upon the court/tribunal resulting in gross failure of justice.”
When the order was passed in the contempt application which was filed by the applicant after hearing the applicant, we see no grounds made out to recall of the judgment. Any error in the judgment which is being pointed out by the applicant cannot be a ground for recall. Contempt application was filed by the applicant for initiating contempt which application has been not entertained and rejected.
We fail to see that how the court will have no jurisdiction to decide the contempt application of the applicant. Remedy of the applicant was to file an appeal, if he was aggrieved by the order rejecting the contempt application.
We thus are of the view that no grounds have been made out to recall the judgment dated 06.01.2025. Application is rejected.