In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court declined to reopen a previously dismissed Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by M/s Lamba Exports Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that post-disposal applications cannot be used to revisit concluded matters except in rare circumstances.
The bench made it clear that later developments in related proceedings cannot automatically justify recalling a final order.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to an Agreement to Sell dated August 13, 2021, concerning a commercial property in Gurugram. The petitioner, Lamba Exports Pvt. Ltd., sought specific performance of the agreement, claiming it had paid substantial sums toward the deal, including amounts linked to a proposed One Time Settlement (OTS) with a bank.
However, the sellers contested the enforceability of the agreement, arguing that the transaction depended on the bank’s approval of the OTS which never materialized at the time.
A trial court initially granted interim protection to the petitioner, restraining the sale of the property. This relief was later overturned by the appellate court, and subsequently upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision. During the proceedings, the Court directed a deposit of ₹26 crore as part of interim arrangements.
Eventually, on February 25, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, refusing to interfere with the High Court’s findings.
Read also:- No Right to Claim Vacant Post from Old Merit List: Supreme Court Sets Aside Karnataka HC Order
Following this, the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking recall of the dismissal order, citing subsequent developments including a finalized OTS and withdrawal of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The bench firmly rejected the recall plea, underlining that such applications are maintainable only in narrow and exceptional situations.
“The present case does not fall within that limited class,” the Court observed, noting that once a matter is disposed of, the Court becomes functus officio - meaning it no longer retains authority over the case.
On allegations of suppression of facts, the Court was cautious. It stated that claims of fraud must be backed by clear material and cannot be based on mere assertions.
Read also:- Relaxation in TET Doesn’t Block General Category Selection: Supreme Court
“The exception is a serious one and cannot be invoked on the basis of assertion alone,” the bench remarked.
The Court also clarified that subsequent developments in insolvency proceedings cannot retroactively affect earlier judicial decisions made in a different legal context.
Addressing arguments related to insolvency proceedings, the Court reiterated the principle that decisions of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) are governed by “commercial wisdom,” which is generally beyond judicial review.
It refused to compare financial offers or evaluate whether the petitioner’s proposal was better than the one accepted during the insolvency process.
Read also:- Tribals Must Prove Existing Custom To Claim Exemption From HMA: MP High Court
Concluding that the application lacked merit, the Supreme Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Application. It also declined to examine the legality of subsequent insolvency proceedings within the scope of the recall plea.
Importantly, the Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the ongoing civil suit or insolvency proceedings, leaving all issues open for adjudication before appropriate forums.
Case Title: M/s Lamba Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Dhir Global Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Miscellaneous Application No. 1256 of 2025 (in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12264 of 2024)
Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Decision Date: March 23, 2026
