In two rulings, NCLAT New Delhi refused recall of earlier orders, holding that recall needs fraud pleaded with particulars or an adverse order passed without hearing, not a rehearing on merits.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, has in two rulings held that the power of recall is narrow. It cannot be used to reargue a case lost on merits or to obtain a substantive declaration that should have been sought in appeal [Amarendra Financial Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Cynosure Real Estates Private Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3330-NCLAT(New Delhi)-IBC; Directorate of Enforcement & Ors. v. Udayraj Patwardhan & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3339-NCLAT(New Delhi)-IBC].

Amarendra Financial. Before Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial), and Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical), with the judgment written by Mr. Salecha, two NBFCs challenged the refusal to recall orders of 19 Apr 2022. Those orders had rejected their Section 7 petitions over loans of ₹2.30 crore and ₹1.70 crore disbursed in April 2017, for want of proof such as a loan agreement and certified bank statements. The NBFCs alleged fraud: a false reply by the debtor, suppression of its income tax return and failure to file audited balance sheets.

The Tribunal held that whether the money was a loan was the very point in contest, decided on merits after both sides were heard. A weak stand by the other side is not a fraud on the Tribunal. An applicant seeking recall must plead with particulars a false statement or concealment made knowingly to the Tribunal, on which the order was obtained, and which it had no fair chance to meet. A document already on record, or new evidence found later, is a matter for appeal, not recall.

Directorate of Enforcement. Before Justice Yogesh Khanna, Officiating Chairperson, Barun Mitra, Member (Technical), and Ajai Das Mehrotra, Member (Technical), with the order written by Mr. Mitra, the ED sought recall of an NCLAT order of 16 Apr 2026. That order had revived the resolution professional’s plan approval application. The ED said it was not heard, although some of the debtor’s properties stood attached under its provisional attachment order of 9 Jan 2026.

The Tribunal found that the ED knew of the order by 16 May 2026 but did not appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 62, nor challenge the NCLT’s approval of the plan on 19 May 2026. Recall is warranted only where an adverse order is passed without hearing a party. The earlier order had only directed reconsideration and adjudicated no right of the ED, and Asit Kumar Kar was distinguished. The prayer for a declaration that attached properties could not form part of the plan sought a decision on merits, outside the scope of recall.

Both the appeals and the recall application were rejected.

2026-juristway.com-3330-NCLAT(New Delhi)-IBC | 2026-juristway.com-3339-NCLAT(New Delhi)-IBC