Post-disposal miscellaneous applications cannot reopen dismissed Special Leave Petitions based on subsequent developments in independent proceedings.

The applicant/petitioner sought specific performance of an Agreement to Sell (ATS) dated 13.08.2021 for a property owned by Respondent No. 1, asserting they had paid earnest money and amounts toward an upfront One Time Settlement (OTS) with the Respondent Bank

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana denied an interim injunction, holding the ATS was contingent on the Bank’s approval of the OTS, which was then absent

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the High Court's order on 25.02.2025

The applicant subsequently filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) for recall of the dismissal, alleging that the respondents suppressed material facts regarding a new OTS proposal dated 14.02.2025 and the subsequent withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC)

1. Whether a post-disposal Miscellaneous Application for recall of an order dismissing an SLP is maintainable based on subsequent developments

2. Whether subsequent developments in independent insolvency proceedings (OTS/CIRP withdrawal) warrant the reopening of a final order in a civil revision matter

3. Whether the Court can evaluate the "commercial wisdom" of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) regarding a Section 12A IBC settlement within the scope of a recall application

The Court applied the principle of functus officio, holding that once a matter is disposed of, the Court loses jurisdiction except to correct clerical/arithmetical errors or address implementation impossibilities

It relied on Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. and Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. to deprecate the practice of filing post-disposal MAs

Regarding the IBC, the Court applied the "commercial wisdom" doctrine from K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank and Essar Steel (India) Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, establishing that business decisions of the CoC are non-justiciable

It further noted that while dismissal of an SLP does not attract the doctrine of merger, it does not permit reopening via MA on grounds outside settled parameters

The Court held the MA was not maintainable as the dismissal order was not executory and lacked clerical errors

It reasoned that the applicant’s reliance on insolvency developments (Section 12A IBC) was a collateral attack on a separate statutory framework that could not be adjudicated within a civil suit's SLP

The Court emphasized that the High Court’s judgment must be evaluated based on the circumstances existing at the time of its delivery; subsequent events cannot retroactively invalidate prior adjudications

The Court rejected the allegation of fraud, noting the dismissal was a non-speaking order not predicated on any specific suppressed representation

Finally, the Court refused to compare the financial merits of the applicant's offer against the approved OTS, ruling that such assessments belong to the CoC’s commercial wisdom and are immune from judicial substitution

The Court clarified that the dismissal of the MA does not constitute an opinion on the merits of the pending civil suit or the ongoing IBC proceedings, leaving all contentions open for appropriate forums