Grindlays Bank Ltd. versus Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors.
How later courts have used it
- A procedural review to correct an order passed without hearing an affected party inheres in every court or tribunal even absent a substantive review power.1,2
- Substantive review on merits, involving re-appreciation of evidence, is impermissible in the guise of a procedural review.3,2
- Grounds for recalling an order include lack of jurisdiction, non-service of notice on an aggrieved party, and fraud or misrepresentation.4
- An appellate forum cannot cure a lack of notice that vitiated proceedings at the first instance.5
- An order under Section 17A of the RDBA Act, 1993 granting interim relief is without jurisdiction as that provision confers only administrative powers.6,7
- Under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, an award recording settlement does not terminate pendency until the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A.8,9
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
These judgements largely concern the review or recall of orders passed by tribunals, courts, and statutory authorities, and the distinction between procedural review and review on merits. Courts in these matters have held that a procedural review, to correct orders passed under a misapprehension, without hearing an affected party, or on account of an overlooked procedural irregularity, inheres in every court or tribunal, even where no substantive power of review exists. Such review is available on limited grounds, including orders passed without jurisdiction, where an aggrieved party was not served with notice, or where there was fraud or misrepresentation. An error apparent on the face of the record, such as ignoring a material document like an insurance policy, is also a valid ground for correction. Where the applicant was a stranger to the original proceedings, delay in filing a review is condonable if the explanation is bona fide.10,11,1,2,4,12,13
Several judgements emphasise that this inherent power to review procedurally does not extend to a substantive review on merits. A tribunal or court cannot reappreciate evidence or revisit findings of fact in the guise of a procedural review. For instance, an Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has no substantive power of review on the merits; its review power is confined to correcting procedural defects such as absence of notice or mistaken assumption of service. Similarly, an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority is vitiated by breach of natural justice where adverse findings rest on internal communications or consequences not foreshadowed in the show-cause notice, a defect an appellate forum cannot retrospectively cure. The line between a procedural review and a review on merits has been drawn in the context of condonation of delay, with courts declining to entertain the latter.3,2,5,14
Where an authority acts beyond the jurisdiction conferred by statute, its orders have been set aside. A Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal acting under Section 17A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, exercises only administrative and superintendence powers, and an order granting interim relief or staying a sale under that provision is a judicial power vested exclusively in the Appellate Tribunal under Section 17, and therefore without jurisdiction. Similarly, a regulatory authority must act within the four corners of its statute, and expertise does not enlarge jurisdiction; a statutory bar applies regardless of procedural form if the substantive effect is to reopen a consummated transaction.6,7,5
Citing judgements
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a revision petition seeking recall of an ex-parte injunction. Holding the application fell under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, the Court ruled the appealable remedy under Order 43 Rule 1(r) barred intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution, directing the petitioner to file an appeal…
DisposedDistinguishedOpenIndian Bank (Allahabad), Sam Branch, through Its Authorized Officer, Rahul Jaiswal Vs Maa Lalita Hospital and Research Centre Private Ltd.
Outcome: AllowedDistinguishedSection 17A RDB Act 1993 scope; Chairperson DRAT powers — administrative/supervisory vs judicial; Section 17 jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal; ultra vires interim order; stay/quashing of restraint on issuance of sale certificate; SARFAESI Section 13(2) demand notice;
AllowedDistinguishedOpenSingle-bench judgment held that Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting review application and directing owner to indemnify award. Tribunal ignored insurance policy on record and misread witness testimony regarding commercial use. Judgment modified award to be satisfied by insurance company with interest recovery provision.
AllowedDistinguishedOpenGayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited, 2025 INSC 605 : [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2080, Supreme Court of India, 5-Judge Constitution Bench, 30 April 2025 (Civil Appeal Nos. 6178-6179 of 2025, from Madras High Court OSA Nos. 59 and 181 of 2015 dated 08.08.2019).
DisposedRelied onOpenThe Court allowed the appeal, holding that impugned orders of the NCLAT and CCI were vitiated by a breach of natural justice. The final order relied on material and directions not fairly foreshadowed in the show-cause notice.
AppliedOpenSection 362 CrPC bar on alteration or review of judgment; functus officio; procedural review versus substantive review; proceedings under section 340 CrPC criminal in nature; review under Order XLVII CPC not maintainable in criminal proceedings; recall on a ground available but not raised impermissible;
AllowedRelied onOpen
Show 6 more
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority versus Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr.
Outcome: AllowedRelied onSupreme Court (Manoj Misra, J.; Chandrachud CJI and Pardiwala J. concurring bench) held that the NCLT possesses inherent power, preserved by Rule 11 NCLT Rules and reinforced by s.60(5)(c) IBC, to recall its s.31(1) order approving a resolution plan;
AllowedRelied onOpenThe High Court quashed an ex-parte industrial tribunal award reinstating a manager. The Court held the dispute was not maintainable because the employee was a manager, not a workman, and the Tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction as the work was performed in Haryana.
DisposedFollowedOpenReview petition maintainability by non-party/third party; S.114 r/w Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; procedural review versus meritorious review; error apparent on the face of record; violation of principles of natural justice; directions passed without impleading/hearing affected party set aside;
AllowedRelied onOpenAP High Court WP 8750 of 2025 (APHC010146352025), decided 23.04.2026, Dhiraj Singh Thakur CJ & R. Raghunandan Rao J — SARFAESI auction / DRT Visakhapatnam; review of order dated 29.06.2022 dismissing S.A.No.463 of 2021 after withdrawal of auction by Maximus ARC;
DismissedRelied onOpenReview petitions challenged an ex parte order substituting Hitachi Energy India Ltd. in place of ABB Ltd. in two miscellaneous appeals arising from arbitration proceedings, following a NCLT-approved Scheme of Arrangement.
AllowedRelied onOpenReview petitions against an order substituting Hitachi Energy India Ltd. in place of ABB Ltd. in pending miscellaneous appeals arising from arbitration proceedings, filed without hearing the petitioner. Delay condoned; substitution order recalled as violating natural justice.
AllowedRelied onOpen
Appeal No. 168 of 2022 of M/s Jsw Hydro Energy Ltd. versus Secretary, Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.
Tribunal AppealReferredThe Appellate Tribunal for Electricity held that Interest During Construction (IDC) on excess equity deployed beyond 30% is admissible under the 2014 Tariff Regulations.
Tribunal AppealReferredOpenThe Madras High Court set aside an MSME Council award passed without initiating mandatory arbitration proceedings after conciliation failed. The Court allowed the revision and granted liberty to the respondent to file a civil suit within three months, invoking limitation provisions.
AllowedRelied onOpenYashoda Hospital and Research Centre Ltd, Rep. through Its Authorised Signatory Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, through Its Chairperson
Outcome: AllowedReferredThis judgment quashed interim orders passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRTA) under Section 17A of the RDB Act, 1993, which stayed the issuance of a sale certificate to an auction purchaser.
AllowedReferredOpenSection 33(2)(b) Industrial Disputes Act 1947 — approval not obtained — dismissal during pendency of references — Section 20(3) pendency; Section 17/17A enforceability after thirty days from publication — award recording withdrawal/settlement does not end pendency — Grindlays Bank (1980 Supp) SCC 420 relied on;
Partly allowedRelied onOpenIndustrial Tribunal review jurisdiction; procedural review versus review on merits; Industrial Disputes Act 1947; power of review not statutorily conferred; representation of workmen through authorised representatives; locus of union; Exhibit U-6; recall of order dated 9 October 2023;
AllowedReferredOpenSection 33(2)(b) Industrial Disputes Act 1947 — approval not obtained — dismissal during pendency of references — Section 20(3) pendency; Section 17/17A enforceability after thirty days from publication — award recording withdrawal/settlement does not end pendency — Grindlays Bank (1980 Supp) SCC 420 relied on;
Partly allowedRelied onOpen
Show 4 more
Industrial Tribunal review jurisdiction; procedural review versus review on merits; Industrial Disputes Act 1947; power of review not statutorily conferred; representation of workmen through authorised representatives; locus of union; Exhibit U-6; recall of order dated 9 October 2023;
AllowedReferredOpenCross writ petitions between workman Santosh Chandrkant Potdar and Bajaj Auto Limited, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Amit Borkar, J.; reserved 24 April 2026, pronounced 30 April 2026), arising from the Award dated 18 January 2024 of the Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint (IT) No.1 of 2014.
DismissedRelied onOpenSection 33(2)(b) Industrial Disputes Act 1947 — approval not obtained — dismissal during pendency of references — Section 20(3) pendency; Section 17/17A enforceability after thirty days from publication — award recording withdrawal/settlement does not end pendency — Grindlays Bank (1980 Supp) SCC 420 relied on;
Partly allowedRelied onOpenIndustrial Tribunal review jurisdiction; procedural review versus review on merits; Industrial Disputes Act 1947; power of review not statutorily conferred; representation of workmen through authorised representatives; locus of union; Exhibit U-6; recall of order dated 9 October 2023;
AllowedReferredOpen