Praful Satra & Ors. vs Vaishali Patrikar

This appeal came to be dismissed vide our judgement dated 27.11.2025 by which we confirmed the Order of the Adjudicating Authority allowing an application taken out by the resolution professional under Sec.66 IBC.

Now applicants/appellants have taken out present application for recalling the said order on the ground that at least two inadvertent errors were entertained in that Order and to that extent we need to revisit the same.

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and also the resolution professional. Clarifying that the Tribunal has authority to recall its order even if it does not have the power of review as held by a five Member Bench of this Tribunal Union Bank of India vs. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian and others [(2024) 248 Comp Cas108].

The learned Counsel submitted that the two errors we allowed to creep into our Order dated 27.11.2025 are:

a. In paragraph 50 of our Judgement we have observed that a certain Pravin Viram Satra is the first cousin of the first appellant, a suspended director of the corporate debtor, and have held him to be a related party. The error is that, except sharing the same surname, Pravin Viram Satra and the first appellant are not related parties within the meaning of IBC. It was informed that such an averment was erroneously made by the arguing counsel but was corrected in the written submissions.

b. While fastening liability on the appellants under Sec.66 of the IBC, we had overlooked the fact that appellants 2 to 5 are only independent and non-executive directors of the CD and hence they would not be liable nor can they be made liable even if there are materials to uphold the Order passed under Se.66 IBC.

The learned Counsel for the resolution professional/respondent submits that he has no objection if this error can be corrected. So far as the liability of the appellants 2 to 5 are concerned, both the first appellant and the other appellants have filed separate appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the Order of this Tribunal.

We gave a careful consideration to the issue at hand and in the light of the Judgement of this Tribunal in Praful Satra and Ors. Vs Vaishali Patrikar, Resolution Professional of Satra Properties (India) Limited [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 348 of 2025], we only choose to correct the error in our finding that Pravin Viram Satra is a related party of the first appellant. Accordingly, in paragraph 50 of our judgement we correct it by deleting the last line i.e. “Admittedly, as stated by the counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Pravin Viram Satra, the partner of M/s Darshan Developers, is also a first cousin of Appellant No. 1 Mr. Praful Satra.”

So far as the issue of liability of appellants 2 to 5 goes, inasmuch as the appellants have preferred appeals to Supreme Court, it may not be appropriate on our part to consider the same. Propriety demands that we refrain from making any observation or decision with regard to the same.

Accordingly the I.A. stands disposed of.