NCLAT Declines To Recall Ruling Holding Cosmic CRF Ineligible As Resolution Applicant In Amzen CIRP

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi recently refused to recall its earlier judgment declaring Cosmic CRF Limited ineligible to participate as a resolution applicant in the insolvency resolution process of Amzen Transportation Industries Ltd., holding that no error had been shown that would justify the exercise of its recall jurisdiction.

A bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Arun Baroka observed that the earlier judgment had already considered the material placed on record and that recall cannot be sought merely to reargue the case.

The tribunal said that the applicant had failed to point out any factual error or ground that would warrant interference with the earlier decision.

The tribunal was dealing with a plea filed by Cosmic CRF Limited seeking recall of the judgment passed in July 2025, by which the appellate tribunal had held the company ineligible to act as a resolution applicant and had directed that the corporate insolvency resolution process should continue from the stage of issuance of a fresh invitation for resolution applicants. The tribunal declined to modify or recall those findings.

Amzen Transportation Industries Ltd. was admitted into insolvency proceedings in May 2022 on a petition filed by IDBI Bank. During the resolution process, Cosmic CRF submitted a resolution plan and was initially found eligible by the committee of creditors.

Objections were later raised alleging that the company attracted disqualification under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code because of its alleged connection with Cosmic Ferro Alloys Ltd., whose loan account had earlier been classified as a non-performing asset and which had undergone insolvency proceedings.

Reports obtained during due diligence referred to the shareholding of Aditya Vikram Birla in CFAL, the role of family members in that company, execution of guarantees in respect of CFAL's borrowings, and the subsequent acquisition by Cosmic of one of CFAL's units.

On the basis of these materials, the committee of creditors at one stage treated Cosmic as ineligible, though the issue was later reconsidered after obtaining a legal opinion supporting eligibility.

Cosmic argued that the disqualification was wrongly applied because eligibility has to be examined as of the date of submission of the resolution plan, by which time the insolvency of CFAL had already been resolved and its earlier liabilities stood extinguished.

It was also contended that the earlier appellate judgment travelled beyond the scope of the appeal, since the appeal before the tribunal had arisen from the dismissal of an application filed by a rival resolution applicant on the ground of lack of locus.

According to Cosmic, the tribunal recorded findings on ineligibility under Section 29A without the issue being directly in question and without granting an opportunity to address it, which was contrary to the principles of natural justice.

The opposing parties relied on the reports and legal opinions obtained during the resolution process to contend that the connection of the promoters with CFAL, including past shareholding, guarantees, and subsequent transactions, attracted the disqualification under Section 29A.

Rejecting the plea, the appellate tribunal held that the scope of recall is limited and cannot be used to reopen findings on merits. The bench observed that the earlier judgment had been passed after considering the reports, legal opinions and submissions of the parties, and that the applicant was seeking a rehearing under the guise of recall.

The tribunal noted that once the earlier decision had examined the issue of eligibility under Section 29A on the basis of the record, the same could not be revisited in recall proceedings, and held that no ground was made out to recall the judgment