This is an application for recall of the judgment passed by the Tribunal on 2024-01-19 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 58 of 2024. The applicant claims that a statement was incorrectly noted in Paragraph 6 of the Order, indicating the Appellant had written to the Liquidator expressing readiness to comply with the Order, and the Liquidator had already sent a cheque for refund, which was encashed. The applicant asserts no such writing was made and seeks recall of the Order.
Bansal Ship Breakers filed an application seeking the recall of a judgment passed by the NCLAT on January 19, 2024, in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 58 of 2024. The applicant, Bansal Ship Breakers, argued that a statement recorded in Paragraph 6 of the order was incorrect. This statement indicated that the Appellant had written to the Liquidator expressing readiness to comply with the order, and the Liquidator had already sent a cheque for refund, which was encashed. Bansal Ship Breakers claimed that no such written communication was made. The Tribunal noted that the applicant was heard when the original order was passed. The Tribunal also cited the Union Bank of India case regarding the grounds for recall of an order. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Tribunal passed the…
Bansal Ship Breakers…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
This is an application for recall of the judgment passed by the Tribunal on 2024-01-19 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 58 of 2024. The applicant claims that a statement was incorrectly noted in Paragraph 6 of the Order, indicating the Appellant had written to the Liquidator expressing readiness to comply with the Order, and the Liquidator had already sent a cheque for refund, which was encashed. The applicant asserts no such writing was made and seeks recall of the Order.
Bansal Ship Breakers filed an application seeking the recall of a judgment passed by the NCLAT on January 19, 2024, in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 58 of 2024. The applicant, Bansal Ship Breakers, argued that a statement recorded in Paragraph 6 of the order was incorrect. This statement indicated that the Appellant had written to the Liquidator expressing readiness to comply with the order, and the Liquidator had already sent a cheque for refund, which was encashed. Bansal Ship Breakers claimed that no such written communication was made. The Tribunal noted that the applicant was heard when the original order was passed. The Tribunal also cited the Union Bank of India case regarding the grounds for recall of an order. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that
…The Tribunal passed the…
Bansal Ship Breakers…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.