Canara Bank vs Sumeet Kumar Somani

22.01.2026: I.A. No. 218, 262, 263 & 264 of 2026 Sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of 2/3 days delay in filing the appeal. Delay is condoned.

These appeals have been filed against the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Court-II rejecting IA No. 1215(Ahm)/2025 and another applications against four personal guarantors who were respondent herein. The application was filed under Section 95 by the Canara Bank against the personal guarantors which came to be dismissed by order dated 18.09.2025 by the Adjudicating Authority holding the application to be beyond prescribed period of limitation. The said order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority considering the application as well as reports submitted by the Resolution Professional after the aforesaid rejection of the application under Section 95; recall application, IA 1218/Ahm/2025 and other applications have been filed which have been rejected by the impugned order giving rise to this appeal.

The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the recall application on the ground that recall application is not maintainable and the applicant had to take necessary recourse by challenging the order as per procedure. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that although recall applications were rejected but certain observations have been made in fourth paragraph which may prejudice the rights of the bank.

We have considered the submission of counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

The Section 95 application filed by the personal guarantors who were respondents in these appeals were heard and dismissed by order dated 18.09.2025. When the order was passed by Adjudicating Authority on merits dismissing the applications, no review or recall application could have been filed by the bank. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Greater Noida Industrial Development vs. Prabhjit Soni has categorically laid down the grounds on which recall can be entertained. Present is a case where none of the grounds for recall were made out. Adjudicating Authority thus rightly has rejected the applicant as not maintainable.

We only observe that application having been dismissed as not maintainable any observation made in the order may not prejudice any case of the bank in other proceedings.

With these observations, we dismiss above all appeals i.e; CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 61/2026, 76/2026, 77/2026 & 78/2026.