Col. Ashish Khanna, SM (Retd) v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. and Anr. - There is no doubt to the preposition of law that this Tribunal has a power to recall its own order but such power can be exercised only when (i) order passed is without jurisdiction; (ii) it is obtained by practicing fraud or collusion; (iii) there exists a fundamental procedural error viz necessary party not being served; (iv) the order being passed on misunderstanding of facts which resulted in prejudice to a party; (v) and gross failure of justice.

 NCLAT (2025.12.22) in Col. Ashish Khanna, SM (Retd) v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. and Anr. [(2025) ibclaw.in 1113 NCLAT, IA No. 6314 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) No. 203/2025] held that; 

• There is no doubt to the preposition of law that this Tribunal has a power to recall its own order but such power can be exercised only when 

• (i) order passed is without jurisdiction; 

• (ii) it is obtained by practicing fraud or collusion; 

• (iii) there exists a fundamental procedural error viz necessary party not being served;

• (iv) the order being passed on misunderstanding of facts which resulted in prejudice to a party; 

• (v) and gross failure of justice.

Excerpts of the Order;

This application is filed by the appellant/applicant under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 seeking recall of the dismissal order dated 08.09.2025 passed by this Tribunal. The grievances of the applicant are 

• (a) date of judgement in Company Appeal (AT) No.242/2024 is wrongly mentioned as 21.10.2024 in the corrected copy of order dated 02.09.2025, which is factually incorrect and the exact date of order is 18.12.2024; 

• (b) the order dated 08.09.2025 records there is nothing pending as on 08.09.2025 but whereas Contempt Case (AT) No.21/2025 was pending in the same Bench prior to its transfer to Court No.II; 

• (c) there were five prayers in Company Appeal (AT) No.203/2025 but whereas only interim reliefs were taken up and not granted qua removal of President for AGM fraud and intimidation; and qua execution of order dated 15.03.2022 passed by Ld. NCLT entitling SFIO investigation on AGM Fraud and 

• (d) no finding on perjury on 24.04.2025 or NCLT contumacious refusal to take on record Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissal orders/notices.

# 2. Heard.

# 3. The grievances of the applicant viz the date of judgement of Company Appeal (AT) No.242/2024 was wrongly mentioned as 18.09.2024 in the order dated 29.08.2025 and even in its corrected order dated 02.09.2025 it was mentioned as 21.10.2024; but whereas the correct date of the said judgement is 18.12.2024. There is no issue in correcting the date of judgement in orders dated 29.08.2025 and dated 02.09.2025; as 18.12.2024; instead of 18.09.2024 and 21.10.2024 as above. Thus stands corrected and be read accordingly.

# 4. Qua grievance (b) viz it was wrongly noted in the order dated 08.09.2025 that nothing is pending before this Tribunal but whereas a Contempt Case No. 21/2025 was pending. However, we find Contempt Case No. 21/2025 was for an another order than of order dated 01.04.2022 and whereas the order dated 08.09.2025 only noted there was nothing pending against order dated 01.04.2022 before it, hence (b) doesn’t require any interference.

# 5. Regarding (c) that there were five prayers in CA(AT) No.203/2025 but only interim reliefs were considered; we intend to note evidently the appeal bearing No.CA(AT) No.203/2025 was against an order dated 24th April, 2025 vide which an adjournment was granted to hearing of various applications mentioned in Order dated 24.04.2025. The hearing of all such applications was rather adjourned to dated 09.10.2025. Now the prayers made in the appeal were all already pending before the Ld. NCLT in one or another application(s) so filed and only its adjournment to 09.10.2025 was rather challenged before this Tribunal. It was for these reasons it was considered not necessary by Hon’ble Court No.1 to enter into such prayers for which applications were already pending before the Ld. NCLT. We also see no reason to interfere on grievance (c) either.

# 6. Qua submissions on perjury, it is evident to note a similar application was filed by the appellant on 23.10.2024 before the Ld. NCLAT wherein request was to charge Mr. Rajiv Hora for making false statements on affidavit dated 12.09.2024 (filed to Reply to IA No.5502/2024) and further to direct the Ld. NCLT to pronounce orders in perjury complaint. Such application was rather dismissed on 18.12.2024 and hence was not taken up by this Tribunal and rightly so.

# 7. Lastly the applicant urged the order dated 08.09.2025 needs correction in para 14, 8th line, wherein instead of NCLT; NCLNT is recorded. Hence the word NCLNT stands corrected to NCLT in the order dated 08.09.2025 and be read accordingly.

# 8. The applicant then had taken us to various government notings, more specifically at pages No.193 to 214 of his appeal, but as submitted these are also part of the applications filed by the applicant before the Ld. NCLT, hence we refrain to comment on the same. Thus we find no failure of justice has occasioned vide order dated 08.09.2025. There is no doubt to the preposition of law that this Tribunal has a power to recall its own order but such power can be exercised only when 

• (i) order passed is without jurisdiction; 

• (ii) it is obtained by practicing fraud or collusion; 

• (iii) there exists a fundamental procedural error viz necessary party not being served;

• (iv) the order being passed on misunderstanding of facts which resulted in prejudice to a party; 

• (v) and gross failure of justice.

# 9. We do not find any of the ingredients of (i) to (v) as above; necessary for recall of the judgment/order dated 08.09.2025, present in this application, and hence we are not inclined to allow this application and we dispose it of as above. However, we request the Ld. NCLT to take up the applications so filed by the applicant in a time bound manner and to hear and dispose it, as expeditiously as possible.

------------------------------------------