Disagreement With Its Assessment Of CIRP Developments Not Ground For Recall: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal's Mumbai Bench has held that a disagreement with the Tribunal's assessment of developments during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cannot, by itself, constitute a mistake warranting recall of an order.

A Bench of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati dismissed the suspended director's plea to recall an order rejecting his challenge to post-February 6, 2026 CIRP actions, after the Maharashtra PWD was directed to deposit approximately ₹691 crore, affecting the corporate debtor's valuation.

"A disagreement with the Tribunal's assessment of those developments cannot be treated as a mistake warranting recall.", the Tribunal observed.

The dispute concerns the continuation of the CIRP of Sion Panvel Tollways Private Limited beyond February 6, 2026. The insolvency commenced on March 17, 2023 and the NCLT, by an order dated October 9, 2025, granted a final 120 day extension until February 6, 2026, stating that no further extension would be granted. Meanwhile, on December 4, 2025, an interim direction in arbitration proceedings against the Maharashtra Government's Public Works Department required the deposit of approximately ₹691 crore, which affected the corporate debtor's valuation and resolution strategy.

Suspended director Babu Narayan Rai challenged the steps taken after the CIRP deadline but the NCLT dismissed his application on September 29, 2026, leading to the present recall plea.

The Tribunal observed that its earlier order had considered the subsequent ₹691 crore deposit and its impact on the corporate debtor's valuation and resolution process. Whether its reasoning or interpretation of the October 9, 2025 order was legally correct concerned the merits of the adjudication, which could not independently justify recall.

On the objection letter allegedly submitted by CoC member Suraksha ARC on June 5, 2026, the Tribunal found no material showing that the letter had been placed before it during the earlier proceedings. It also held that the challenge to the interim arbitral direction did not establish any procedural defect warranting recall.

The bench therefore concluded that Rai had failed to show that the earlier order resulted from an omission of material considerations that prejudiced him. His grounds essentially questioned the reasoning and conclusions of that order and did not meet the limited requirements for recall under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the recall application and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on the suspended director, directing that the amount be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within four weeks.

For the RP: Advocates Rishi Badraj and Bhavit Baxi, Deep Roy

For the Applicant: Advocates GP Madaan, Akhand Pratap Singh Gaur

For the CoC: Advocates Shriraj Khambete, Rounak Doshi, i/b Saraf and Partners.