NCLAT Dismisses Recall Application in Company Appeal — Tribunal Directed to Consider Intervention Application. The Tribunal found that the recall application did not prejudice any party's rights and upheld its previous order directing the NCLT to consider the intervention application.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: CHENNAI
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a company appeal filed by Jaiguhan Venture Properties Private Limited against various respondents, including individuals and companies. The appeal was initially disposed of by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 31.10.2025, with directions for the NCLT to consider an intervention application. Following this, the applicant sought to recall the order, which led to the current proceedings. The NCLAT, upon reviewing the recall application, noted that the Apex Court had affirmed its previous order but allowed the appellant to file a recall application. The NCLAT concluded that the order from 31.10.2025 was a simple direction for the Tribunal to consider the intervention application and did not prejudice any party's rights. Consequently, the recall application was rejected, and the NCLAT maintained its earlier directive for the NCLT to proceed with the interim application and the intervention application. The decision underscored the importance of allowing the Tribunal to exercise its discretion in considering applications on their merits without interference from the appellate authority.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Recall Application - Dismissal of Recall Application - Companies Act, 2013 - The Tribunal dismissed the recall application as it did not prejudice the rights of any parties involved, affirming the previous order directing the NCLT to consider the intervention application on its merits. Held that the nature of the order sought to be recalled was merely a direction to the Tribunal and did not warrant interference (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the recall application should be entertained after the Apex Court's affirmation of the previous order.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The recall application was rejected, and the NCLAT maintained its earlier directive for the NCLT to proceed with the interim application and the intervention application.

Law Points

  • Company law
  • recall application
  • intervention application
  • NCLT proceedings
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (10) 105

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 138/2025

2025-10-31

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Jatindranath Swain

Mr. Arunava Mukherjee, Mr. Nisarg P. Khatri, Ms. Apeksha Kachhawaha, Mr. Arun C Mohan

JAIGUHAN VENTURE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED

MR. POOVAZHAGAN, CHENNAI BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, MONTECINO CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDIA LAND HOTELS MUMBAI PRIVATE LIMITED, AMERICORP CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, INDIA LAND HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HARISH FABIANI, MALTI BHOJWANI LACHMANDAS, INDIA LAND AND PROPERTIES LIMITED, REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, CHENNAI, REGIONAL DIRECTOR (SOUTH)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Activities of Social Organizations Due to Lack of Maintainability. The petition was found to be motivated by personal grudge rather than genuine public interest, lacking evidence of fundamental rights...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Section 2(1)(a) of Punjab Special Powers (Press) Act but Strikes Down Section 3 for Lack of Time Limit and Representation. Restriction on Publication Relating to 'Save Hindi Agitation' Held Reasonable ...