By the Court.—Heard Shri Ashish Chaturvedi, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Ms. Shraddha Agarwal, learned counsel for the first respondent, Shri Shailendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-Official Liquidator and Shri R.K. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been filed contending that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to reject the recall application on the principles of a review application which does not appear to be the correct approach inasmuch as a recall application has to be dealt with on different principles.

2. The learned Single Judge, according to the appellant, has relied on the judgement relating to the principles of review which was not applicable more so when the learned Single Judge himself has recorded that the application is for a recall application for the order dated 22.7.2014.

The contention of the appellant is that the order dated 22.7.2014 is ex parte and consequently, it deserved to be recalled.

3. The order dated 22.7.2014 had proceeded to observe that since the Official Liquidator had been appointed, therefore, there was no need to pass an interim order.

4. Learned counsel for the parties are at variance on the issue that debts have been admitted, but that is a matter to be considered by the learned Company Judge himself.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire matter can be disposed of on merits itself as the respondents have filed counter-affidavit.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Shraddha Agarwal submits that the appellants had been continuously avoiding the hearing of the Company petition and had been seeking unnecessary and unwarranted adjournments as such the refusal of the learned Single Judge to recall the order is fully justified. It is further submitted that the appellants themselves having failed to appear before the Court, should not be granted any interim orders in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Companies act, 1956.

6. We have considered the submissions raised and we have also heard learned counsel for the Official Liquidator as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent.

7. In the present case, the appellant had filed a recall application on 9.9.2014. The said application recites that the case was listed on 21.7.2014 in the daily cause list and the junior colleague of the counsel for the appellant had been instructed to seek an adjournment as the learned Counsel had to go for some personal work. According to the recall application, the junior colleague of the Counsel could not gather as to whether the case was called out for being taken-up and was under the expectancy that the matter would be rotated the next time but the matter appears to have been posted for the very next day on 22.7.2014. It is stated in the recall application that no notice was given to the appellant’s counsel about the case being taken up the very next day in an additional supplementary cause list, and therefore the counsel could not appear on 22.7.2014. Consequently, the order dated 22.7.2014 was passed ex parte and it was prayed that the appellant should not be made to suffer on account of there being no deliberate default of the counsel for the appellant. An explanation about the time span consumed in moving the recall has also been furnished.

8. The counsel for the respondent Ms.Shraddha Agarwal moved an objection to the recall application by stating therein that there is no substantive provision under the Companies Act under which a recall or review application could be filed in a Company Petition, and therefore the learned Company Judge had no jurisdiction to allow the recall application. A copy of the said objection dated 22.9.2014 has also been filed on record.

Hearing on the recall application proceeded on 9.9.2014 and the order passed on that date is already extracted in the impugned order. When the matter was taken up on 24.1.2017,