Th NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI I.A. No. 6478 of 2025 In Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 917 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF:

Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd. …Appellant(s)

Versus Sapan Mohan Garg, …Respondent(s)

RP, M K Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Present:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Siddharth Garg, Mr. Srajan Yadav, Advocates.

Mr. Palash S Singhai, Mr. Harshal Sareen, Advocates for RP.

For : Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Apoorv Respondent(s) Agarwal, Mr. Manav Goyal, Ms. Ayushi Goyal, Advocates for Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd.

O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

06.11.2025: I.A. No. 6478 of 2025-

Heard Shri Gaurav Mitra, Ld. Counsel for the applicant, Shri Siddharth Yadav, Ld. Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, appearing for the non-applicant/Respondent and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been moved by the applicant (Respondent No. 2 (b) in the CA (AT) No. 917 of 2025) and the following prayers were made:

(a)Recall the Judgment dated 24.09.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Appellate Authority in “Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sapan Mohan Garg & Anr.”, C.A. (AT) (Ins) No. 917 of

2025; and/or (b)Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Appellate Authority may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

3. Shri Mitra, Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the judgment dated 24.09.2025, has been passed by this appellate tribunal on the basis of a mistake which has erupted by the fraud played by the appellant.

4. Elaborating further it is submitted that on 02.07.2025 an additional affidavit has been filed by the appellant without taking any permission from this appellate tribunal and some additional documents which were not on the record of NCLT have been filed.

5. It is further submitted that so much so it was on 07.07.2025, the written submissions have been filed by appellants whereby also certain documents have been filed which were not on the record of the adjudicating authority and thereafter, on 15.07.2025, written submissions were filed by the appellant and thereby also certain new documents have been filed without seeking any permission from the tribunal, as additional evidence and after considering these documents, which have been filed behind the back of the applicant, the impugned order has been passed.

6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to paragraph no. 38 to 41 of the order dated 24.09.2025 and vehemently submits that though the matter has been remanded back to the tribunal for afresh consideration but this appellate tribunal has based its finding in paragraph no. 41 of the judgment on the basis of the discussion which has been held in para no. 38 to 40 of the same, wherein these additional documentary evidence has been discussed.

7. It is further submitted that the manner in which these additional documents have been filed by the appellant would amount to a ‘fraud’ and thus the application for recall moved by the applicant be allowed and the judgment dated 24.09.2025 be recalled.

8. Shri Gaurav Mitra, Ld. Counsel has relied on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court:

(i)Budhia Swain vs. Gopinath Deb, (1999) 4 SCC 396.

(ii)Union Bank of India vs. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian, (2024) 248 Comp Cas 108.

(iii) Anish Lawrence vs. Renahan Vamakesan CA (AT) (Ins) No. 377 of 2023.

(iv) Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin &Anr., (2012) 8 SCC 148.

(v) Md. Anwar Alam Khan vs. Zaibun Nisa, 2015 SCC Online Cal 10415.

(vi) City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah, (1976) 4 SCC 9.

(vi) Basayya I. Mathad vs. Rudrayya S. Mathad, (2008) 3 SCC 120.

9. Shri Siddharth Yadav, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the non- applicants (Appellant) submits that the argument which have been advanced on behalf of the applicant are totally misconceived as there is no element of fraud.

10. Elaborating further it is submitted that an additional affidavit was filed by the non-applicant (appellant) on 02.07.2025 wit