TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Jural Relationship and the Locus. Keeping in view the grounds raised and this Tribunal s limited Jurisdiction, there are no substantial reasons to entertain this Recall Application and hence, the same is dismissed accordingly. - (Justice M. Venugopal) Member (Judicial) And (Shreesha Merla) Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. D. Srinivasa Rao, Party-in-Person (For Applicant) For the Respondents : Mr. T. Ravichandran, Advocate for R1 Mr. A.G. Sathyanarayana, Advocate for RP/R2 ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) [Per: Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)] 1. IA No. 1014 / 2023 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 159 / 2023 is filed seeking Recall of the Order dated 21.09.2023, passed by this Tribunal in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No.159 / 2023, by which Order, this Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Applicant / Appellant herein on the ground that there was a Debt and a Default and that the Section 7 Application filed by the Respondent / Financial Creditor was not barred by Limitation. While allowing the Appeal, this Tribunal observed that in Para 29, as follows : 29. We find it apposite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to argue the matter afresh on merits which is not permissible under the Law and that there is substantial evidence that the Sivananda Reddy Group was incharge of the management of the affairs of the Company, as per the Order of BIFR dated 22.11.2011 to which, the Applicant was also a Party. 4. The Party in person vociferously contended that Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not attracted as the referred Letters mailed by Sivananda Reddy Group who have no jural relationship are also after the expiry of Limitation. 5. Admittedly, there were disputes regarding the management of the Company and the BIFR Order dated 22.11.2011 has directed the Sivananda Reddy Group to continue the management of the affairs of the Company and has issued the following specific directions: (i) Reddy Group to continue the management affairs of the company and to fully tied up DRS to IDBI (OA) within 6 weeks on behalf of the company. (ii) IDBI (OA) to examine the DRS and convene the joint meeting of all concerned, and submit fully tied up DRS. If emerges to the Board within next 6 weeks. (iii) Next date of hearing is fixed on 27.02.2012. 6. From the aforenoted directions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Corporate Debtor Company; NCLT, Hyderabad in CP/87/2007 ruled in favour of the Applicant on 15.05.2017; BIFR Notice dated 22.11.2011, directed the Sivananda Reddy Group to manage the affairs of the Corporate Debtor, which was stayed by the AIFR only on 21.02.2012 and therefore, since 2012, the Applicant is managing the affairs of the Corporate Debtor Company. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent drew our attention to a Letter dated 16.02.2010 which is addressed by Mr. K. Ranganathan, the Authorized Signatory, on behalf of the Corporate Debtor Company which has been examined by this `Tribunal in Paragraph 20 of the Order in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 159 / 2023. 12. At the cost of Repetition, the letter referred to by this Tribunal in Paragraph 21 of the Order dated 21.09.2023, the previous OTS Letters were addressed to and the question of Limitation has been discussed in detail by this Tribunal in that Order and therefore, any attempt to `reargue the matter on the issue of Limitation cannot be appreciated by this Tribunal, keeping in view its limited Jurisdiction. 13. `ISSUES D E , raised by the Applicant in his Recall Petition that the issue raised with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce and a decree was made against him and such party approaches the Court for setting aside the decision ex debito justitiae on proof of the fact that there was no service. 7. In Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. XIX) under the Chapter Judgment Opening and Vacating (paras.265 to 284 at pages 487-510) the law on the subject has been stated. The grounds on which the courts may open or vacate their judgments are generally matters which render the judgment void or which are specified in statutes authorising such actions. Invalidity of the judgment of such nature as to render it void is a valid ground for vacating it at least if the invalidity is apparent on the face of the record. Fraud or collusion in obtaining a judgment is a sufficient ground for opening or vacating it. A judgment secured in violation of an agreement not to enter judgment may be vacated on that ground. However, in -17- Reference in I.A. No. 3961 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 729 of 2020 general, a judgment will not be opened or vacated on grounds which could have been pleaded in the original action. A motion to vacate will not be entered when the proper remedy is by some other proceedings, such as by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n delivering the earlier judgment; for example; necessary party has not been served or necessary party was not before the Tribunal when judgment was delivered adverse to a party. There may be other grounds for recall of a judgment. Well known ground on which a judgment can always be recalled by a Court is ground of fraud played on the Court in obtaining judgment from the Court. We, for the purpose of answering the questions referred tous, need not furter elaborate the circumstances where power of recall can be exercised. ( Emphasis Supplied ) 13. In the instant case, the Order was passed by this Tribunal after hearing all parties at length. The ground of fraud has not been pleaded and nor is there any procedural lapse. The grounds for recall have already been settled by the Full Bench in Union Bank of India vs. Dinkar (Supra) and this Tribunal is of the considered view that the present case is not covered within any of the grounds for Recall made clear under the aforenoted Judgement of this Tribunal. 15. Keeping in view that all the issues raised by the Applicant in the `Recall Application has been addressed to in detail and this `Tribunal , does not find any e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
