Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2020 (8) TMI 338 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyJurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority - withdrawal of approved Resolution Plan - time limitation of achieving Insolvency Resolution of the Corporate Debtor - Principles of Res-Judicata - Delay in completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT - The Adjudicating Authority while passing the order of dismissing the application in CA No. 1252(PB)/2019 dated 10.7.2019 had not specifically dealt with the aspect of supply of copy of certificates under Sections 43, 45, 50 and 66 of the I B Code. Likewise the (iii)(rd) relief withholding of approval of Resolution Plan sanctioned by the Committee of Creditors of Corporate Debtor was also not expressly adverted to by the Adjudicating Authority at the time of dismissing the CA No.1252(PB)/2019. To put it precisely the Adjudicating Authority while dismissing CA No.1252(PB)/2019 on 10.7.2019 had merely mentioned about the ivth relief prayed for by 1st Respondent / Resolution Applicant viz. the revaluation of the Resolution Plan submitted by it before the Resolution Professional but not granted the said relief but merely mentioned that no ground for considering the prayer sought in the application is made out by passing a speaking order but merely mentioned no ground for considering the prayer sought in the application is made out and the said application was dismissed as such. Principles of Res-Judicata - HELD THAT - The said principle is a prohibition against the Court / Tribunal. An inter-party order passed by a competent Tribunal binds them even if it is an erroneous one. If an order is passed in a given proceedings and the same became final then in Law it would be binding at a later stage of the proceeding in the considered opinion of this Tribunal. Res Judicata prohibits an inquiry at the very threshold and bar the trial of a suit or a given proceeding - The Rule of constructive Res Judicata is enshrined in explanation iv of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. In fact the doctrine of Res Judicata applies to all judicial proceedings and equally to all quasi-judicial proceedings before Tribunals. When any matter might and ought to have been raised as a ground of defence in an earlier proceeding but that was not made then in Law to avoid plurality of litigations and to bring about finality in it such matter was deemed to have been constructively in issue and as such is taken as determined . The issue of withdrawal of Resolution Plan by the Applicant has never been considered consciously on merit and / or adjudicated upon in CA No. 1252(PB)/2019 and proceeded to mention that doctrine of constructing Res Judicata does not apply to the issues/points or any lis between the parties that was not decided previously and despite been pleaded was not considered by court/Tribunal and expressly dealt with in the order so passed etc. this Tribunal is of the considered view that these observations are not legally tenable because of the latent and patent fact that the grounds raised by the 1st Respondent / Successful Resolution Applicant in CA 1816(PB)2018 (withdrawal application) were projected earlier and rejected in CA No. 1252(PB)/2019 through an order dated 10.7.2019. Furthermore the plea of the 1st Respondent / Successful Resolution Applicant and the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the prayer for withdrawal was not considered while disposing of CA No. 1252(PB)/2019 is quite in tune with the very principle of Res Judicata which means that the reliefs should be deemed to have been denied when what were claimed being not granted which unerringly points out that they were denied or refused by the Adjudicating Authority. Withdrawal of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT - In the instant case notwithstanding the fact only upon the approval of the Adjudicating Authority the Resolution Plan of the Resolution Applicant would be binding on all the parties and further that the application for withdrawal was filed by the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant was filed earlier to the stage of Approval by the Adjudicating Authority yet this Court comes to an cocksure conclusion that the Adjudicating Authority in law cannot enter into the arena of the majority decision of the Committee of Creditors other than the grounds mentioned in Section 32(a to e) of the I B Code. Moreover after due deliberations when the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant had accepted the conditions of the Resolution Plan especially keeping in mind the ingredients of Section 25(2)(h) of the Code to the effect that no change or supplementary information to the Resolution Plan shall be accepted after the submission date of Resolution Plan then it is not open to the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant to take a topsy turvy stance and is not to be allowed to withdraw the approved Resolution Plan . Delay in completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT - The 2nd Respondent had clearly pointed out before this Tribunal that no special investigation audit was conducted and therefore the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant cannot have a grievance that the Resolution Professional had not supplied it a copy of the said Audit Report. Further the CBI and SFIO proceedings initiated against the Corporate Debtor are pending and hence and in any event Section 32A of the I B Code grants immunity to the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant in respect of the offences committed by the Corporate Debtor before the start of CIRP . Also that it specifies that the assets of the Corporate Debtor as represented will be available in the right manner as at the time of furnishing of Resolution Plan . When that be the fact situation the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant taking an umbrage of pending SFIO investigation of the affairs of Corporate Debtor or the CBI investigation to file CA 1816(PB) of 2019 (withdrawal application) is unworthy of acceptance - During the period from August 2018 till January 2019 when the orders were reserved by the Adjudicating Authority on the approval application the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant took part and therefore by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the validity of the approved plan was only six months period and such plea is not well founded. This Tribunal comes to an irresistible conclusion that the views arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority in CA No.1816(PB)/2019 in C.P.(IB)No. 101 (PB) 2017 to the effect (i)that doctrine of Res Judicata does not apply to the present case (ii) in granting the relief of withdrawal of Resolution Plan with costs and resultantly allowing the aforesaid CA No. 1816(PB)/2019 in C.P.(IB)No. 101 (PB) 2017 partly specifying the terms therein with costs of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid by the 1st Respondent/ Resolution Applicant are clearly unsustainable in law and accordingly they are set aside in furtherance of substantial cause of justice - Appeal allowed with no costs.
|