Grounds Already Considered Cannot Be Re-Agitated In Subsequent Recall Application: NCLT Guwahati

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Guwahati Bench, has held that grounds already considered while deciding an earlier recall application cannot be re-agitated in a subsequent application seeking recall of that order.

The company had earlier filed a recall application, which was dismissed by the tribunal on August 10

The tribunal observed, “The grounds urged in the present Application have already been considered and dealt with by this Tribunal in its Order dated 10.08.2026 passed in IA(IBC)/145/GB/2026. No fresh ground or subsequent circumstance warranting recall of the Order dated 10.08.2026 has been brought on record.”

The Bench comprising Judicial Member Rammurti Kushawaha and Technical Member Yogendra Kumar Singh dismissed an application by J.U.D. Cements Limited seeking recall of the August 10 order. That order had dismissed the company's earlier application seeking recall of the July 27 order, which had forfeited its right to file a reply in a Section 7 insolvency petition.

Catalyst Trusteeship Limited had filed the Section 7 petition seeking initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process against J.U.D. Cements over an alleged financial debt of about Rs 196.69 crore.

J.U.D. Cements had earlier sought an opportunity to file its reply, claiming that it had not received several documents needed to prepare its defence. The company also relied on settlement discussions between the parties.

The tribunal had granted the company a final opportunity to complete its pleadings by August 4. It had also made clear that no further opportunity would be granted, but the company did not file its reply.

J.U.D. Cements then filed another plea seeking recall of the July 27 order. The tribunal dismissed that application on August 10, holding that the non-supply of documents did not constitute sufficient cause for recall, particularly as adequate opportunities had already been granted.

The company subsequently filed the present application under Section 60(5) of the IBC read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, seeking recall of the August 10 order.

It again relied on the non-receipt of documents and settlement discussions. The company also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Surendra Trading Company v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited, (2017), to contend that procedural requirements should not be applied mechanically where doing so would result in grave injustice.

The tribunal found that these grounds had already been considered. It observed that the company had “once again raised the grounds relating to non-receipt of documents from the Financial Creditor and the pendency of settlement discussions between the parties”.

The present application was filed on August 19, a day before the main insolvency petition was listed for hearing. The tribunal observed that it appeared to have been filed “at the eleventh hour” to seek reconsideration of issues that had already been dealt with.

Finding no fresh ground or subsequent circumstance warranting recall of the August 10 order, the tribunal dismissed the application. J.U.D. Cements' right to file its reply in the main insolvency petition remained forfeited