NCLT Ahmedabad Refuses To Recall Withdrawal Order Where Counsel Was Authorised To Withdraw Petition

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench, has refused to use its inherent powers to recall an order dismissing a contempt petition as withdrawn, holding that the counsel who sought withdrawal was expressly authorised to do so under the Vakalatnama.

“In view of the Vakalatnama authorising withdrawal and absence of any ground recognised in law for recall, no case is made out for exercise of the inherent power under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016,” the bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma ruled.

The ruling came on an application seeking recall of an August 27, 2026 order by which the tribunal had dismissed a contempt petition as withdrawn. The applicant, Arvind Mukundchand Soni, claimed that the withdrawal resulted from a communication gap with his counsel and was not in accordance with his instructions.

Soni had filed the contempt petition under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Rules 11 and 34 of the NCLT Rules, alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the tribunal's final order dated June 27, 2019, as clarified by an order dated October 10, 2019, in TP No. 45 of 2016.

When the contempt petition came up on August 27, counsel appearing for Soni sought its withdrawal. The tribunal accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn. Soni then moved I.A. No. 99 of 2026 seeking recall of the order and restoration of the contempt petition for adjudication on merits.

Soni submitted that the contempt petition had been disposed of at the threshold, without issuance of notice on merits, any reply from the respondents, or adjudication on merits. He contended that the communication gap with his counsel amounted to a procedural infirmity warranting recall under Rule 11.

The tribunal, however, found that the Vakalatnama executed in favour of Advocate Arpit Singhvi and Advocate Sarthak Pandya expressly authorised them to “compromise, settle, withdraw, or agree to withdrawal” of the matter and proceedings arising from it. The authority therefore covered withdrawal of the contempt petition, and the statement made by counsel on August 27 was within that authority.

The bench relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh, (2015), where the Supreme Court held that counsel requires authority to make a statement that concludes or surrenders a client's substantive rights. In this case, the tribunal observed, that authority to withdraw was expressly recorded in the Vakalatnama.

The tribunal also noted that Soni had not placed any material showing that the authority to withdraw had been restricted or revoked before the August 27 order. His subsequent assertion that he had not intended to withdraw the petition concerned communication between him and his counsel and did not establish any procedural defect in the order.

The fact that the contempt petition had not been adjudicated on merits did not, by itself, constitute a ground for recall, the tribunal observed. The August 27 order had been passed on a statement made on Soni's behalf through authorised counsel.

The tribunal referred to Supreme Court rulings holding that recall may be exercised in cases involving lack of jurisdiction, fraud or collusion, a mistake by the court causing prejudice, non-service of a necessary party, or a procedural error. It also noted that the power of recall cannot be used to rehear a matter.

The bench further noted that the August 27 order had granted Soni liberty to take recourse in accordance with law. The present application, it observed, could not be used to substitute the withdrawal with a subsequent decision to pursue the same proceeding.