Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2801

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Rammurti Kushawaha, Member (Judicial), Yogendra Kumar Singh, Member (Technical)
Institute of Instrumentation & Media Science – Appellant
Versus
Sudha Sarma – Respondent
IA(IBC)/42/GB/2026|CP(IB)/10/GB/2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Biswa Ranjan Dash, Mr. Devi Prasad Dash
For the Respondents: Mr. Nirmal Goenka

An application to recall an ex parte order under the IBC is governed by Article 123 of the Limitation Act (30-day period from knowledge of order). An inordinate delay of 400 days without sufficient cause renders the application time-barred.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 35, Section 60(5), Section 238A - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5, Article 123 - National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 - Rules 11 and 23-A - IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulation, 2016 - Regulation 9 - Application for recall of ex parte order - Limitation for setting aside ex parte decree or order is 30 days from date of decree or knowledge thereof - Principles of limitation are to be applied with all rigour; court has no power to extend limitation on equitable grounds - The Limitation Act applies to proceedings under the Code by virtue of Section 238A. (Paras 12, 14)

(B) Recall of Order - Grounds of fraud - Allegations of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation cannot be entertained when the party had due notice of proceedings and failed to appear - An order obtained by fraud may be recalled, but such plea must be substantiated; mere assertion is insufficient - In this case, notices were served via email and speed post, and the party participated in communications, so the claim of lack of knowledge and fraud is untenable. (Paras 8, 9)

(C) Limitation - Sufficient cause - In the absence of any cogent, plausible, or legally sustainable explanation for an inordinate delay of over 400 days, an application for recall is barred by limitation, even if the party alleges that the order was obtained by fraud. (Paras 13, 15)

Facts of the case:
The Applicants (an educational institute, its Chairman, and Principal) filed an application to recall an ex parte order dated 13.12.2024 passed in a previous I.A. That order directed them to pay arrears of rent and monthly rent until handing over possession of a property. The Applicant claimed they had vacated the property on 10.07.2024 and were not in possession, and that the Liquidator had suppressed this fact. They alleged the ex parte order was obtained by fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. The Liquidator contended that the applicants had full knowledge of the proceedings, notices were served, and the application was filed after a delay of over 400 days without sufficient cause. The Tribunal confined its adjudication to the issue of limitation.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that notices were served on the Applicants via email and speed post, and that the Applicants had communicated with the Liquidator via email regarding the property. The Tribunal held that there was no fraud or violation of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the application was filed after a delay of over 400 days and that the Applicants failed to provide any sufficient cause for the delay. The application was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Issues: The main issue was whether the application for recall of the ex parte order was maintainable considering the delay in filing, and whether the Applicants had a valid explanation for the delay.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that where a party has been duly served and has knowledge of proceedings but fails to appear, allegations of fraud are untenable. An application for recall of an ex parte order, when filed after the prescribed limitation period of 30 days under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, must be accompanied by a satisfactory explanation for the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the absence of such explanation, the application is barred by limitation. Result : Application dismissed as barred by limitation. Application accordingly disposed of. (Para 16)

Appearances (through video conferencing/Physical):

For Petitioner : Mr. Devi Prasad Dash, Mr. Biswa Ranjan Dash, (Advs.)

For Respondent : Mr. Nirmal Goenka (Adv.)

Order pronounced on: 13.05.2026 As Per Bench

1. The instant Interlocutory Application i.e. IA (IBC)/42/GB/2026 is filed by Institute of Instrumentation & Media Science, Mr. Ranjan Mahanta (Chairman, Institute of Instrumentation & Media Science) and Mr. Sanjit Roshan Patnaik (Principal, Institute of Instrumentation & Media Science) under section 35 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the Code”) and Rules 11 and 23-A of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (“NCLT Rules”) and Regulation 9 of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulation, 2016 (“Liquidation Regulation”), seeking for the following reliefs:-

a. Pass an order for recalling of the aforesaid ex parte order dated 13-12-2024 passed in the aforesaid disposed of I.A(IBC)No.159/GB/of 2024 and allowing the present Applicants i.e. the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the said disposed of I.A to put forth their case in filling of their objections/show cause for the ends of justice;

b. Pass an order in staying of the further contempt proceeding vide Contempt Application (IBC)

No. 02 of 2025 initiated by the learned Official Liquidator i.e. the present Respondent No. 1 against the Applicants before this Hon'ble Tribunal for the allegations of non-compliance of the aforesaid ex parte order dated 13-12-2024 passed in the aforesaid disposed of I.A (IBC)

No.159/GB/ of 2024, till the final adjudication of the instant I.A.;

c. Pass any other appropriate order/s as may deem just and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal for the ends of justice.

2. Submissions on behalf of the Applicants:

2.1 The applicants submitted that this Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicants who had been arrayed as Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 in the I.A. (IBC) No.159/GB of 2024 that was disposed on ex parte by this Hon’ble Court vide order

13.12.2024 and in this application, the applicants sought for recalling of the said ex parte order dated 13.12.2024.

2.2 Further, the applicants submitted that the applicant sought kind permission of this Hon’ble Court to present this I.A. though a joint petition as envisaged U/s 23-A of the NCLT Rules, 2016, since the cause of actions for filling of this I.A. arose consequent to the aforesaid ex parte order dated 13.12.2024 in I.A.(IBC) No.159/GB of 2024 directing the present Applicants to pay the arrear rent of Rs. 46,50,000/- (Rupees Forty-Six Lakhs Fifty thousand only) for the period of 03.01.2023 to 30.07.2024 and Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty thousand only) per month until peaceful possession of the subject property and the same shall be paid to the said Respondent i.e., the learned Liquidator (Respondent No. 1). Copy of the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by this Tribunal in I.A. (IBC)

No.159/GB of 2024 is annexed as ‘Annexure A-1’.

2.3 Further, the aforesaid disposed of I. A. (IBC) No.159/GB of 2024, the said applicant (Respondent No. 1) had sought for Reliefs vide Para VI (C) therein against the said Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (present Appellants) and same are quoted hereinunder:

Direct the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to pay the arears of rents of Rs. 46,50,000/- (Rupees Forty-Six Lakhs Fifty - Thousand Only) for the period of 03.01.2023 to 30.07.2024 and Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) per month, thereafter until peaceful possession of the subject property to the Applicant.

2.4 The applicants further submitted that Applicant No. 1 is an Educational Institution that has been established and run by a charitable Trust i.e. ‘SAR WELFARE’ and the said Trust is duly created by the virtue of execution of the deed of trust among the trustees concerned. The amendment in the original trust deed was done vide Deed No. 41131906415 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri, at Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khordha, Odisha, the pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2801

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALRammurti Kushawaha, Member (Judicial), Yogendra Kumar Singh, Member (Technical)Institute of Instrumentation & Media Science – AppellantVersusSudha Sarma – RespondentIA(IBC)/42/GB/2026|CP(IB)/10/GB/2021

An application to recall an ex parte order under the IBC is governed by Article 123 of the Limitation Act (30-day period from knowledge of order). An inordinate delay of 400 days without sufficient cause renders the application time-barred.

Cases Referred (1)

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Rammurti Kushawaha, Member (Judicial), Yogendra Kumar Singh, Member (Technical)
Institute of Instrumentation & Media Science – Appellant
Versus
Sudha Sarma – Respondent
IA(IBC)/42/GB/2026|CP(IB)/10/GB/2021