# In the matter of Amod Amladi Vs. Sayali Rane & Anr. CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 295-2017

> NCLAT judgment dated 2017-11-30. Citation: TCN-2017-NCLAT-00036. The case involves an appeal against the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 30 Nov 2017
- **Citation:** TCN-2017-NCLAT-00036
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/amod-amladi-vs-sayali-rane-anr-ca-b616fa86

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against 'Citrus Check Inns Limited'. The appellant, claiming to be an investor in the company, filed an intervention petition before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT Mumbai Bench) alleging that the CIRP was initiated fraudulently by the Operational Creditor in collusion with the Directors. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the appellant's prayer to recall the order admitting the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code). The appellant then filed an appeal against this rejection.

## Facts

Amod Amladi, claiming to be an investor in 'Citrus Check Inns Limited', filed an intervention petition before the NCLT Mumbai Bench, alleging that the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against 'Citrus Check Inns Limited' was fraudulent. The appellant contended that the 'Operational Creditor' initiated the CIRP in collusion with the Directors. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application under Section 9 of the I&B Code on May 2, 2017. The appellant sought to recall this order. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the appellant's prayer on October 3, 2017, stating it lacked the power to recall the May 2nd order. The appellant then appealed to the NCLAT. The appellant argued that 'Citrus Check Inns Limited' is not a 'Corporate

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority had the power to recall its order admitting the application …

**Ratio:** The Adjudicating Authority does not have the power to review or recall its own order

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT held that in the absence of any power of review or recall vested with the

…

**Interpretation:** This interpretation reinforces the principle that quasi-judicial bodies like

…

**Application:** In this case, since the I&B Code does not explicitly grant the Adjudicating

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Amod Am…
- **Respondents:** Citrus Check Inns…; Sayali…
- **Advocates:** Sanjiv…; Rahul Ga…; +2 more

## Timeline

- **2017-05-02 — Order by Adjudicating…**: The Adjudicating Authority admitted the…
- **2017-10-03 — Rejection of Recall…**: The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Appellant's prayer to recall the order dated 2nd…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/amod-amladi-vs-sayali-rane-anr-ca-b616fa86