Supreme Court: Post Disposal Miscellaneous Application Not Maintainable, Entertainable Only in Rare Situations

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard a miscellaneous application filed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12264 of 2024 seeking recall of this Court’s order dated 25.02.2025 which dismissed the SLP against a High Court judgment. The applicant sought reconsideration on the basis of subsequent developments in parallel insolvency proceedings, including a One Time Settlement (OTS) and withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Court dismissed the recall application as not maintainable and held that a post‑disposal miscellaneous application could be entertained only in "rare situations" such as correction of clerical error or impossibility of executing an executory order. The Court emphasized that, once a matter stood disposed of, it became functus officio and did not retain jurisdiction except in narrow, recognized circumstances. 

The Court also declined to revisit commercial decisions taken by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in the insolvency process, observing that "the legislature has consciously made the commercial wisdom of the financial creditors non‑justiciable." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The first obstacle in the way of the applicant is one of maintainability. The order dated 25.02.2025, recall of which is sought, is not an executory order. It merely records that this Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and, accordingly, dismissed the SLP. The present MA does not seek correction of any clerical or arithmetical error. Nor is it a case where directions contained in an executory order of this Court have become impossible of implementation by reason of subsequent events. The settled position is that a post‑disposal miscellaneous application can be entertained only in rare situations of that nature. The present case does not fall within that limited class."

Background

The dispute originated from an Agreement to Sell dated 13.08.2021 in respect of a commercial property in Udyog Vihar, Gurugram. The petitioner (vendor‑buyer dispute) filed Civil Suit No. 1248 of 2022 for specific performance and sought interim injunction; the trial court granted interim protection on 19.07.2022 which was set aside on appeal by the Additional District Judge on 06.09.2022. The petitioner’s revision before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was dismissed by judgment dated 06.05.2024, the High Court holding that the Agreement to Sell was contingent on bank approval of an OTS for the mortgaged property and that specific performance was not prima facie enforceable.

The petitioner moved the SLP in this Court; notice was issued and the Court directed deposit of Rs.26 crore with its Registry in two tranches as part of interim measures. The SLP was dismissed on 25.02.2025. The petitioner then filed Misc. Application No.1256 of 2025 seeking recall of that dismissal, asserting that during the pendency of the SLP Respondent No.1 had proposed an OTS (14.02.2025), an OTS for Rs.34.85 crore was concluded on 21.03.2025, and the CoC approved withdrawal of the CIRP on 05.04.2025. The petitioner alleged non‑disclosure and sought reopening on grounds of suppression and alleged fraud.

The respondents contended that the MA was not maintainable after disposal of the SLP, that insolvency proceedings were a separate statutory domain, and that the CoC’s commercial decision could not be revisited in a post‑disposal miscellaneous application. The Court noted that while "fraud vitiates all proceedings," the exception was serious and could not be invoked on assertion alone; the non‑speaking dismissal did not rest on any specific representation now said to have been suppressed. The Court further explained that subsequent events in separate insolvency proceedings could give rise to independent remedies but could not retroactively invalidate finality of the disposed SLP.

The Court dismissed Miscellaneous Application No.1256 of 2025 and declined to grant interim relief in MA No.1257 of 2025. It clarified that no opinion was expressed on merits of the NCLT order dated 14.05.2025 or on Civil Suit No.1248 of 2022, which remained pending; all rights and contentions in those proceedings were left open.

Case Details:
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12264 of 2024; Misc. Applications Nos. 1256 & 1257 of 2025
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 275
Case Title: M/s Lamba Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Dhir Global Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 246