National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Colliers International (India) ... vs Sas Itower Private Limited on 22 April, 2026
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AT CHENNAI
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 227 / 2026
In the matter of :
Colliers International (India) Property Services Pvt Ltd
Unit 601, 6th Floor, A Wing One BKC,
Plot C-66, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 ... Appellant
V
SAS iTower Private Limited
2th Floor, Unit. No. 1201,
Sy. No. 96 ACE TECK PARK,
Narsingi Nanakramguda Service Road,
Nanakramguda Village, Financial District,
Hyderabad, Gachibowli K.V.Rangareddy,
Seri Lingampally Telangana - 500032 ... Respondent
Present :
For Appellant : Advocates Lomesh Kiran N, Sharan Kukreja, Abhijna
Somashekara, Prashasthi Bhat, Mansi Sethiya,
Soundarya Rajagopal
For Respondent : Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, Advocate
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 22.04.2026:
Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):
The instant Company Appeal, being Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 227 / 2026, has been preferred by the Appellant, by invoking the provisions contained under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, being aggrieved as against Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 227/2026 Page 1 of 11 the impugned order of 11.02.2026 that was passed by the Ld. Tribunal on IA (IBC) / 393 / 2025 which was preferred in CP (IB) / 187 / 9 / HDB / 2024.
2. The proceedings of the Company Petition, was preferred by the Appellant by invoking the provisions contained under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016, has been rejected on merits by an order that was passed by the Ld. Tribunal, as back as, on 29.01.2025. Against which, the Appellant had preferred a Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 223 / 2026, with the Condone Delay Application, seeking condonation of 391 days of delay that, has chanced in preferring the Company Appeal. The was sought to be condoned on the ground of pendency of the Recall Application.
3. The Company Appeal preferred by the Appellant, as against the principal order of rejection of Section 9 Application, under the Code, since the number of days of delay that was being sought to be condoned was falling much beyond the prescribed period of limitation as given under the statute we have dismissed the Appeal holding it, being barred by limitation.
4. After the dismissal of the Company Petition by the Judgment of 29.01.2025, the Appellant is said to have filed a Recall Application seeking recall of the order which was numbered as IA (IBC) / 393 / 2025.
5. In the application for recall, which was preferred by the Appellant was by invocation of Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules 2016. In the application that was filed Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 227/2026 Page 2 of 11 for recalling of the order dated 29.01.2025, if we see the grounds taken by the Appellant in filing of the recall application to the order rejecting his Section 9 application under the Code, was;
That the Appellant / Operational Creditor discovered some new documents later, which could facilitate in establishing the liability of the Corporate Debtor;
6. The discovery of a document subsequent to a decision of merits cannot be a foundation to file a Recall Application. Because, recall in its normal connotation would mean, a recall by a Court or an Authority of an order which apparently reflects some apparent flaw or a procedural flaw committed by the Tribunal(s) itself while passing of an order.
7. The recall itself cannot be utilized as a tool under a guise to override a statutory provision of limitation for preferring an Appeal and even otherwise also, when the reason for recall, which has been given in Para 4 of the Recall Application itself was stated as under:
``4. After the Order was passed, the Operational Creditor has discovered documents which would clearly establish that SAS Infra was converted into the Corporate Debtor, and in effect, taking over all the liabilities of SAS Infra. The details of the documents are as below:
a. The resolution dated November 11, 2021, passed by the partners of SAS Infra consenting to the conversion of SAS Infra into the Corporate Debtor.Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 227/2026 Page 3 of 11
b. The newspaper publications dated February 19, 2022, published by SAS Infra intimating the public of the conversion of SAS Infra into a private limited company, that is, the Corporate Debtor. c. Notice dated February 22, 2022, issued SAS Infra to the Registrar of Firm with the intimation that SAS Infra will be converted into a private limited company, that is, the Corporate Debtor. d. Affidavit of dissolution of partnership after incorporation of the Corporate Debtor dated March 14, 2022. This affidavit clearly states that SAS Infra will continue its business in form of a private limited company, that is, the Corporate Debtor.
e. Affidavit of correctness dated March 14, 2022, executed by the partners of SAS Infra / proposed directors of the Corporate Debtor. f. Form No. URC-1 dated April 4, 2022, filed by SAS Infra and the Corporate Debtor in compliance with Section 366 of the Companies Act, 2013. This form clearly states that the ``existing entity'' is SAS Infra, and the name of the ``proposed company'' is the Corporate Debtor.''
8. Discovery of new document, after decision on merits cannot be a reason to sustain recall, when there is no error in the order sought to be recalled. Whatsoever the documents that has been referred in Para 4 admittedly were the documents, which were alleged by the Appellant to have been discovered by the Appellant after the order of 29.01.2025, rendered on merits.
9. Discovery of a document subsequently, which could have substantiated the principal proceedings under Section 9 of the Code, cannot be a reason for recalling of an order, which has been adjudicated on merits. Any such type of a recall application will amount to be a clear attempt to review an order, which has been passed on merits and if the remaining contents of the Recall Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 227/2026 Page 4 of 11 Application is taken into consideration, the Appellant had only pleaded qua the merits of the documents and how it would effect the proceedings, which has been taken has to be the basis for recall which cannot be considered by the Tribunal at the stage when the recall was being considered of the principal order.
10. Furthermore, the Appellant has pleaded in the Recall Application that, the recall is being sought in the light and on the basis of the additional documents referred to above therein, which admittedly has been pleaded that it was obtained after conducting a further search on the subject of incorporation of the documents of the Corporate Debtor. The reason given in Para 9 of the Recall Application itself cannot permit the Recall Application to be made sustainable in the light of the provisions contained under Rule 11, because a recall cannot be utilized as an avenue to establish an attempt to review the order, which is otherwise not the scope permissible under the I & B Code, 2016.
11. Besides that, there would be yet another question, which would be required to be considered by us, that under the normal principles of law when the main Company Appeal as against the rejection of Section 9 Application has been dismissed by an order passed by us in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 223 / 2026 whether at all, the instant Company Appeal, against the rejection of recall would be maintainable, because after the affirmation of a Judgment passed by the Ld. Tribunal by dismissal of Appeal by this Appellate Forum, no Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 227/2026 Page 5 of 11 recall would be maintainable in the light of the provisions contained under the explanation to Order XI Rule 13 of C.P.C., which though in principle, may not be applicable, but, it will always act as a guiding principles for considering the Recall Application, which falls to be within an ambit of Order XI Rule 13 of C.P.C. and would not be maintainable when the order sought to be recalled has been affirmed in the Appeal. Even otherwise, the order affirmed by Appellant cannot be reopened by way of a recall.
12. The Ld. Tribunal while considering the argument extended by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, as well as the Respondent, a specific finding has been recorded that the resort to filing of a recall was in the shape of a review that would not be maintainable and hence, the recall was dismissed by the impugned order of 11.02.2026. A categoric finding has been recorded that, with the dismissal of the principal Application under Section 9 of the Code, since has been on merits, there cannot be any recall of the order, adopted to have a bearing of review of an order rendered on merits.
13. If we consider the finding recorded in the order of 29.01.2025 rejecting the Application, there was an observation made in Para 14 of the Judgment that ``the Appellant has failed to place any documentary evidence on record to substantiate the claim to show as to how the purported takeover occurred nor as the Operational Creditor presented any legal or financial document, establishing the liability''.
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 227/2026 Page 6 of 11
14. If this be the finding, the recall would be tantamounting to be a disguised platform for review, since the rejection of the Application under Section 9 of the Code, by an order of 29.01.2025, is based upon merits because of the Appellant's inability to establish the case by way of a documentary evidence on record, that cannot now be supplied by the Recall Application nor even the documents supplied by the Recall Application can be taken has to be the basis to recall the order that has been passed on merits.
15. Hence, the Tribunal observed that the review is not a scope open and the powers under Rule 11, for exercising the inherent powers is not to be misread to be construed as if it is conferring a power of review.
(a) Even otherwise also, the issue pertaining to as to what would be the ambit of recall and that too, while exercising the inherent powers under Rule 11 has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Sri Budhia Swain & Ors. v Gopinath Deb & Ors., reported in 2017 ibclaw 282 SC, which has carved out an exception, it would when the proceedings culminated, the orders suffered from an inherent lack of jurisdiction. That is not the case of Appellant in recall, as he was the Applicant to the original proceedings.
(b) The order was obtained by fraud or collusion;
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 227/2026 Page 7 of 11
(c) The order has been passed by the mistake of the Court prejudicing the party;
(d) The Judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact, none of the parameters laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Budhia Swain Judgment supra is attracted to sustain the Recall Application.
16. It needs no specific reference in the recall regards above exceptions for recall, since there is no power of review vested with the Tribunal(s). Hence, it would be safe to construe that recall is not a forum, which could be alternatively made available to a party to the proceedings, to enable the litigant to have a second inning of proceedings, to improve upon the case than what was produced by the Recall Applicant when the principal proceedings were decided on merits.
17. In view of the specific finding recorded that, owing to the admitted case and as pleaded by the Recall Applicant, the Appellant herein in Paras 4 & 9, that the solitary basis of recall, being the discovery of additional documents cannot be a basis for seeking recall of an order, which has been otherwise passed on merits. Hence, the rejection of the Recall Application cannot be said to be faulted in any manner whatsoever.
18. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant in support of his contention has made reference to the following Judgments;
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 227/2026 Page 8 of 11
(a) As rendered in Company Appeal (AT) (INS) No. 371 / 2020 in the matters of Tejas Khandar v. Bank of Baroda, which was dealing with the issue pertaining to taking the additional documents on record, required to be taken on record including the copy of the One Time Settlement thereof involved in the said Company Appeal. I was a case of taking documents for consideration at an Appellate stage under Rule 73 of NCLAT Rules, 2016.
Besides the fact that it was dealing with an aspect and the implication of Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. to be read with Rule 73 of NCLAT Rules, 2016, it was pertaining to a different subject altogether on the issue of consideration of the O.T.S. proposal, factually the issue being distinct altogether, it may not be applicable.
(b) The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant had referred to yet another Judgment reported in 2026 SCC OnLine NCLAT 325 Kamma Srinivasa Rao v. IDBI Bank Limited.
In the said Appeal, we were dealing with as to under what circumstances the provisions contained under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. in principle to be read with Rule 73 could be attracted. We were dealing with taking of documents on record in the said case at an Appellate stage. This case too was based upon different issue altogether, it will not be applicable in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 227/2026 Page 9 of 11 the present case. Hence, the same does not help the Appellant in any manner whatsoever.
19. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant had referred to the Judgment of 1994 Vol 31 DRJ as rendered in IA No. 11047 / 1992 in CO No. 8 / 1992 M/s. Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Hindustan Rimmer & Ors., which was dealing with an aspect of Section 5 to be read with Section 14 for delay in Appeal which will not apply.
20. The aforesaid principle would not be exclusively made applicable until and unless the parameters prescribed for carving out an exception under Section 14 are satisfied as per the provisions contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, itself.
21. All the authorities, which has been referred to by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, since were in context of the scope of taking documents on record at an Appellate stage and were considering the implications of Order XLI Rule 27 to be read with Rule 73 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, they will be of no benefit for the Appellant to contend that owing to a subsequent discovery of documents, which according to the perception of the Appellant was relevant for the principal proceedings under Section 9 of the Code that, could not be construed as to be the reason for recall, in principle which is not acceptable by us and even not permissible under law too.
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 227/2026 Page 10 of 11
22. We have to give a logical end to a litigation. If a proceedings has been adjudicated on merits, and the Judgment has not been challenged within the prescribed period of limitation, if the party aggrieved against the Judgment rendered on merits keeps on fishing and roving for discovering additional documents, the discovery of additional documents in itself cannot be a reason for recall and that too, in the instant case particularly when, the Appeal has already been dismissed since being barred under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Code, the confirmation of the order dated 29.01.2025 rejecting Section 9 Application with the dismissal of the Company Appeal, being Company Appeal (AT) (CH) INS No. 223 / 2026 that itself will now make the subject of consideration of the Recall Application to be negated, which does not calls for any venturing on merits.
23. Thus, we do not find any merit in the argument extended by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant to advocate a principle of entertainment of a recall, after the decision on the proceedings on merits or entertainment of a recall of an order which has been affirmed in an Appeal. Thus, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 227 / 2026 lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial) [Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical) SR/MS/AK Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 227/2026 Page 11 of 11