An order of a lower court approved by the Appellate Tribunal and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court on merits cannot be reopened or challenged on the same grounds, as it operates under the doctrine of merger, unless specifically vitiated by established fraud.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant against an impugned order 28.11.2025 whereby the Ld. NCLT in CP (CAA)/104(MB)2025 had approved scheme of arrangement with creditors which seeks to settle the claim of specified creditors arising from August, 2013 payment default on the National Spot Exchange Ltd by proposing a capped settlement of Rs.31,950 crores. The scheme is challenged on the ground it is prejudicial to the public interest and opposed to the public policy.

2. Before the Ld. ASG would argue the matter on merits it was pointed out to him this Tribunal vide its Judgement dated 15.01.2026 had already sustained the order of Ld. NCLT which had approved the scheme and have rejected the objections raised by L.J. Tanna Enterprises Pvt Ltd and others in Company Appeal (AT) No.03/2026. Rather to the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by this Tribunal has since been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1485/2026 decided on 09.03.2026.

3. Confronted with the above, the Ld. ASG had referred to A.V Papayya Sastry and others Vs Govt of AP and others (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 221 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

38. The matter can be looked at from a different angle as well. Suppose, a case is decided by a competent Court of Law after hearing the parties and an order is passed in favour of the applicant/plaintiff which is upheld by all the courts including the final Court. Let us also think of a case where this Court does not dismiss Special Leave Petition but after granting leave decides the appeal finally by recording reasons. Such order can truly be said to be a judgment to which Article 141 of the Constitution applies. Likewise, the doctrine of merger also gets attracted. All orders passed by the courts/authorities below, therefore, merge in the judgment of this Court and after such judgment, it is not open to any party to the judgment to approach any court or authority to review, recall or reconsider the order.

39. The above principle, however, is subject to exception of fraud. Once it is established that the order was obtained by a successful party by practising or playing fraud, it is vitiated. Such order cannot be held legal, valid or in consonance with law. It is non-existent and non est and cannot be allowed to stand. This is the fundamental principle of law and needs no further elaboration. Therefore, it has been said that a judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud has to be treated as nullity, whether by the court of first instance or by the final court. And it has to be treated as non est by every Court, superior or inferior.

Hence, the argument of Mr. Venugopal cannot be upheld. Even if he is right in submitting that after dismissal of SLPs, the respondent herein could not have approached the High Court for recalling its earlier order passed in April, 2000 and the High Court could not have entertained such applications, nor the recalling could have been done, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the finding by the High Court that fraud was committed by the land-owners in collusion with the officers of the Port Trust Authorities and Government, in our considered view, no fault can be found against the approach adopted by the High Court and the decision taken. The High Court, in our opinion, rightly recalled the order, dated April 27, 2000 and remanded the case to the authorities to decide the same afresh in accordance with law.

4. Thus it was argued by the Ld. ASG the scheme even if is approved by Ld. NCLT and this Tribunal and affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, can be recalled if it is proved the sche