Supreme Court Rejects Recall Plea In Disposed SLP, Says Court Cannot Compare Rival Offers Before CoC Under IBC
Kirit Singhania
23 March 2026 7:34 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a miscellaneous application seeking recall of its February 25, 2025 order dismissing an SLP in a dispute over an agreement to sell a property of a corporate debtor, holding that a disposed Special Leave Petition cannot be reopened on the basis of subsequent developments in insolvency proceedings or rival financial offers before the Committee of Creditors.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that the court cannot sit in appeal over the comparative financial attractiveness of rival offers or substitute its own view for the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
“In these proceedings, which arise out of a disposed SLP in a civil revision concerning an Agreement to Sell, this Court cannot be called upon to sit over the comparative financial attractiveness of rival offers or to substitute its own view for the business decision taken by the CoC in the statutory process under the IBC," the court observed.
The dispute arose between Lamba Exports Pvt Ltd and Dhir Global Industries Pvt Ltd from an Agreement to Sell dated August 13, 2021 concerning a property in Gurugram. The Punjab and Haryana High Court on May 6, 2024, had declined interim protection, observing that the agreement was contingent upon approval of a one-time settlement by the bank.
The SLP filed by Lamba Exports against this order was dismissed on February 25, 2025, by the Supreme Court.
The applicant later sought recall of the dismissal, relying on developments in parallel insolvency proceedings, including an OTS dated March 21, 2025 for 34.85 crore and withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 12A of the IBC. It was contended that the applicant had made a higher financial offer, which ought to have been considered.
Rejecting the applicant's arguments, the court held, “The mere assertion by the applicant that its offer was higher would not, by itself, furnish a ground to reopen the dismissal of the SLP or to unsettle steps taken in a separate insolvency framework.”
Accordingly, the application was dismissed. The court reiterated that decisions under the IBC fall within the exclusive domain of the CoC's commercial wisdom and are not subject to judicial substitution.