Supreme Court Holds Recall of Dismissed SLP Not Maintainable on Grounds of Subsequent Developments or Alleged Suppression

Held: The Supreme Court held that a miscellaneous application seeking recall of a dismissed Special Leave Petition is not maintainable merely on the basis of subsequent developments or alleged suppression of facts, as the Court becomes functus officio upon disposal of the SLP, and such recall can be entertained only in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances such as clerical errors or impossibility of implementing an executory order.

Summary: The case arose from an application seeking recall of an order by which the Supreme Court had dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging a High Court decision refusing interim relief in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The applicant relied on subsequent events, including a One Time Settlement between the secured creditor and the corporate debtor and withdrawal of insolvency proceedings under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, to argue that the earlier dismissal was based on incomplete or suppressed facts. The respondents opposed the application on grounds of maintainability and contended that the subsequent developments were part of separate insolvency proceedings. The Court examined the scope of post-disposal jurisdiction and reaffirmed that once an SLP is dismissed, the Court ordinarily cannot reopen the matter except in limited situations such as correction of errors or where an executory order becomes unworkable. It further held that subsequent developments in parallel proceedings cannot be used to reopen finality in a disposed matter, and allegations of fraud must be substantiated with clear evidence, which was lacking in the present case. The Court also emphasized that commercial decisions taken by the Committee of Creditors under the IBC are non-justiciable and cannot be revisited in collateral proceedings.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the miscellaneous application seeking recall of the order dated 25.02.2025 and declined to interfere with the dismissal of the SLP, holding it not maintainable; it clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the underlying civil suit or insolvency proceedings, and all rights and remedies of the parties were left open to be pursued before appropriate forums.