9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction On adhering to Principle of Natural Justice, and therefore, it is held that the power to recall our Orders/Judgements dated 19.07.2023 and 31.07.2023 ought not to be exercised in the facts of the attendant matter on hand. Application dismissed. - [ Justice Anant Bijay Singh ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Ms. Shreesha Merla ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellants : Mr. U. K. Chaudhary , Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alishan Naqvee , Ms. Rupal Bhatia , Mr. Mansumyar Singh , Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Sibal , Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manu Nair , Mr. Ajit Nair , Ms. Medha Sachdev , Ms. Riya Basu, Ms. Simran Malhotra , Advocates ORDER ( Through Virtual Mode ) [ Per : Shreesha Merla , Member ( T ) ] 1. The present Application is filed by the Appellant/Applicants seeking recall of the final Order/Judgement dated 31.07.2023 and Order dated 19.07.2023 to the extent they relate to Company Appeal (AT) No.87/2020. 2. It is submitted by the Learned Sr. Counsel, Dr. UK Chaudhary that the Appellants/Applicants had filed two Company Appeals before this Tribunal against two different Impugned Orders, details of which are as hereunder: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Learned Sr. Counsel that when I.A. No.2178/2023, filed by the Respondent, was listed for hearing before this Tribunal on 24.05.2023, this Tribunal conducted a short Virtual Hearing and recalled its Order dated 28.03.2023 on the basis of the Hon ble Supreme Court Order dated 24.04.2023. It is strongly contended by the Learned Sr. Counsel that the Order dated 19.07.2023 wrongly notes that both these Appeals were heard at length and Judgements were reserved and parties were directed to file their Additional Written Submissions. To the surprise of the Appellants/Applicants herein, both the Company Appeals were listed for Orders on 31.07.2023 and the Judgement was pronounced in both the Company Appeals. During pronouncement of the Judgement, it was brought to the notice of this Tribunal that Company Appeal (AT) No.87/2020 was not heard at all, however, this Tribunal did not heed to the submission of the Applicant. 5. It is further submitted by the Learned Counsel that an interim Order dated 14.07.2020 was passed by this Tribunal in favour of the Applicant staying the operation of the Impugned Order dated 05.06.2020 in Company Appeal (AT) No.87/2020 after appreciating the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers on 08.07.2021, when the Appellants had submitted arguments only in the Section 8 Appeal. Even in the order dated 08.07.2021, this Appellate Tribunal recorded list these appeals for further arguments of the Learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant . The Appellants accepted this position and raised no objection whatsoever. Since both these Appeals were part heard before this Tribunal, the Appeals were transferred back from the NCLAT Chennai and listed before this Bench as recorded in the Order dated 31.08.2021. Both Appeals were fixed for hearing on 26.10.2021. Once again on 26.10.2021 this Appellate Tribunal, while adjourning the matter at the request of the Appellant, records list these two Appeals For Hearing . Once again, no objection was raised by the Appellant. On 21.12.2021, once again the Appellant addressed their arguments only in the Section 8 Appeal. Both matters were again listed For Hearing on 09.02.2022. On 05.08.2022 this Tribunal had recorded that arguments by the Appellant were concluded and noted to list these appeals For Hearing on 12th October 2022 at 2:00pm for reply arguments on behalf of the Respondents . Despite such a clear i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny violation of Principles of Natural Justice. Evaluation : 8. A brief perusal of the daily Orders shows that on 19.01.2021, both the Appeals were taken up together and listed for hearing on 27.01.2021: On 15-01-2021 the matter was De-Part Heard . After that, the new date matter was listed before us. List the Appeal For Hearing on 27th January, 2021 along with Company Appeal (AT) No. 87 of 2020. 9. Thereafter on 25.02.2021, the Appeals were taken up together and listed for hearing on 08.07.2021, when both the Appeals were tagged and this Tribunal had recorded to list these Appeals for further arguments of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant . After the matters were transferred back from NCLAT Chennai, once again on 26.10.2021, this Tribunal had recorded to list both these Appeals for hearing and no objection was raised by the Appellant. The Order dated 05.08.2022 reads as hereunder: The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Respondents are present. From the perusal of the order dated 21.12.2022 it appears that the arguments on behalf of the Appellant is concluded. -2- List these Appeals For Hearing on 12th October, 2022 at 2:00 PM for reply arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay of operation of the impugned judgment/order dated 10.01.2023. We clarify that we have not stayed the proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal. 3. Today, heard the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellants and Ld. Counsel for the Respondents. 4. In view of the aforesaid Order of Hon ble Supreme Court, list these Appeals again For Order on 28th August, 2023. On that day, the Ld. Counsel for the parties will inform the status of the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. 3515 of 2023. (Emphasis Supplied) 11. From this aforenoted Order, it is clearly seen that subsequent to the Orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court both these Appeals were listed again for Orders on 28.08.2023 . It is categorically recorded in the aforenoted detailed Order that both these Appeals were heard at length and Judgement was reserved on 24.02.2023 . Even at this juncture, the Applicants had not raised any objection that Company Appeal (AT) No.87/2020, ought to be delinked and heard separately or that they were not heard at all. 12. It is the main contention of the Learned Sr. Counsel, Dr. UK Chaudhary that on 24.05.2023, I.A. No.2178/2023 filed in Company App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation is accordingly disposed of. 2. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the aforesaid order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Order dated 23.03.2023 passed by this Bench is hereby recalled and the matter is directed to be listed on 19.07.2023 at 02:00 PM for hearing. 3. In the meanwhile, Counsel for the Parties may file Reply and Written Submissions/Additional Written Submissions. 3. Heard Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Applicants and also heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant on I.A. No. 2178 of 2023 filed in Company Appeal (AT) No. 204 of 2020. Heard in Company Appeal (AT) Nos. 87 of 2020 and 204 of 2020 are reserved for Judgment. ( Emphasis Supplied ) 13. It is clear from the aforenoted Order that though the I.A. 2178/2023 was filed in Company Appeal (AT) No.204/2020, it is pertinent to mention that both these Appeals were tagged and heard together since 2021 and after multiple hearings, it is also significant to mention that there was no whisper on behalf of the Applicants either on 21.12.2021, 09.02.2022, 05.08.2022, 24.11.2022, 14.12.2022, 17.01.2023 and specifically on 24.02.2023, when initially both the Orders were reser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 38-A whereunder a review may be sought for within one year from the date of the decision or order but only on the ground that there has been a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the course of any proceedings in the Act. It was also conceded by the learned counsel for the appellants that the proceedings initiated by the appellants were certainly not under Section 38A. It was also conceded at the bar that the subsequent action of the O.E.A. Collector could be sustained only if supportable by the power to recall. 6. What is a power to recall? Inherent power to recall its own order vesting in tribunals or courts was noticed in Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres India Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550 Vide para 23, this Court has held that the courts have inherent power to recall and set aside an order (i) obtained by fraud practised upon the Court, (ii) when the Court is misled by a party, or (iii) when the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party. In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 (vide para 130), this Court has noticed motions to set aside judgments being permitted where (i) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that a nec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
