The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai Bench has dismissed a plea filed by the suspended director of Sion Panvel Tollways Private Limited seeking the recall of an order that allowed the continuation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) beyond the previously set deadline of February 6, 2026. By imposing a cost of ₹2,00,000 on the applicant, the bench underscored the limitations of its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, emphasizing that such powers cannot be utilized as a substitute for a merit-based review or to re-hear concluded matters.

The tribunal’s decision, delivered on October 27, 2026, stems from a contentious dispute over the progression of insolvency proceedings that commenced in March 2023. Babu Narayan Rai, the suspended director of the corporate debtor, had challenged the validity of all actions taken by the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) after the tribunal’s earlier directive that no further extensions would be granted beyond February 2026. The tribunal, however, concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate any procedural error, fraud, or jurisdictional overreach that would justify the drastic measure of recalling a judicial order.

Evaluating Inherent Powers and Scope of Recall

In addressing the application, the division bench consisting of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati focused on the legal distinction between the power of review and the power of recall. Referencing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni , the bench reiterated that an adjudicating authority’s inherent power under Rule 11 is meant to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of process, rather than to serve as an appellate mechanism for re-litigating findings.

The tribunal observed that the applicant’s argument relied heavily on a disagreement with the bench’s assessment of subsequent developments in the resolution process. Specifically, the applicant contended that the tribunal erred by treating the October 9, 2025, order as an interim measure that could be varied. The tribunal’s findings articulated that: “A disagreement with the Tribunal’s assessment of those developments cannot be treated as a mistake warranting recall.” The order further specified that legal disputes over the finality of an extension deadline concern the merits of an adjudication, which cannot be reopened in recall proceedings unless there is a clear instance of a mistake by the court that caused prejudice.

Impact of Arbitration Developments on Resolution Strategy

A significant factor influencing the tribunal’s stance was the material change in the corporate debtor's valuation following an interim order in arbitration proceedings against the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Government of Maharashtra. On December 4, 2025, the High Court directed the PWD to deposit approximately ₹691 crore into a fixed deposit account associated with the corporate debtor. This development fundamentally altered the value proposition and resolution strategy of the company, a circumstance the tribunal deemed necessary to account for when evaluating the necessity of continuing the CIRP.

The CoC had relied upon this valuation shift to justify its decision to issue a fresh Form G, inviting expressions of interest to maximize asset value. The tribunal maintained that the CoC’s commercial decision-making, when aligned with the broader objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to maximize value, should not be hampered by rigid interpretations of interim timelines if such timelines prove inconsistent with subsequent material changes. The order noted that “the interim award dated 04.12.2025, directing deposit of Rs. 691 Crores, materially altered the assets of the Corporate Debtor, which necessitated a fresh look at the resolution process.”

Addressing Procedural Allegations and Costs

Throughout the proceedings, the applicant raised several issues regarding the conduct of the CoC, including the alleged non-consideration of an objection letter from a creditor and the claim that resolution plans were rejected without proper voting. The tribunal examined these contentions and found them to be unsubstantiated by the record. Regarding the objection letter from Suraksha ARC, the bench clarified that there was no material evidence presented to show that such a document had been properly placed before the tribunal during the earlier hearings.

Furthermore, the tribunal rejected the applicant’s claim regarding the lack of liberty to file written submissions, noting that such procedural allowances are granted at the discretion of the bench to assist in the administration of justice and are not a matter of right for the parties. The bench highlighted the applicant’s history of filing numerous applications challenging the conduct of the CIRP, characterizing the current petition as an abuse of the court’s process.

The final order mandates that the ₹2,00,000 cost imposed on the suspended director be deposited into the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within four weeks. Proof of this payment must be submitted to the tribunal within seven days of the transaction. By issuing this directive, the NCLT Mumbai has reaffirmed its commitment to preventing the stagnation of insolvency processes caused by repeated and frivolous litigation, ensuring that the primary goal of asset maximization and resolution remains the focus for all stakeholders involved in the Sion Panvel Tollways insolvency. The matter serves as a firm reminder to suspended management that the tribunal’s jurisdiction to recall its own orders remains strictly confined to cases of patent error, lack of jurisdiction, or the discovery of fraud.