2023 (7) TMI 264 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Applicability of principles of res-judicata - admission of belated claim filed by individual homebuyers as well as the Appellant - HELD THAT - A three Member Bench of this Appellate Tribunal had also occasion to consider the question as to whether a decision which has also been final between the parties can be retrospective on the strength of overruling of an earlier judgment. The three Member Bench of this Tribunal inRaghavendra G. Kundangar Ors. vs. Shashi Agarwal Anr. 2022 (8) TMI 1157 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI where it was held that the principle of resjudicata though a part of CPC it would be applicable to the proceeding of this Tribunal and IBC. Only to prevent the abuse of process of law and give a finality to any proceeding or orders and to avoid an endless litigation to frustrate the very object of enacting IBC the claim of appellants is liable to be rejected. Thus substantial prayer made by the Appellant to admit the claim of the Appellant having been finally rejected upto the Hon ble Supreme Court could not have been entertained and deserve to be rejected. The present is a case where although Appellant has not filed any claim but the booking amount of the 50 flats as is claimed by the Appellant is reflected in the Resolution Plan itself which indicate that the said was part of the Information Memorandum - The present is a case where Appellant could not have prayed for any direction on the basis of orders of this Tribunal in Puneet Kaur vs. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. Ors. 2022 (6) TMI 108 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI because the Resolution Plan notice the claim of the Appellant of booking of 50 units. It is noted that in so far as 9 units which according to the Appellant are in his possession Resolution Professional has submitted that necessary transfer documents shall be executed in event the Appellant complies the necessary terms and conditions. Hence the said prayer needs no consideration. The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting I.A. No. 3640 of 2022 filed by the Appellant. There is no merit in the Appeal - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness and admissibility of the Appellant's claim.
2. Applicability of the judgment in "Puneet Kaur vs. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors."
3. Principle of res judicata and its application in the case.
4. Execution of transfer documents for the 9 units in possession of the Appellant.

Summary:

1. Timeliness and Admissibility of the Appellant's Claim:
The Appellant's claim was filed on 16.06.2021, which was rejected by the Resolution Professional on 24.03.2021 as time-barred. The Resolution Plan had already been approved on 03.03.2021. The Appellant's subsequent application (I.A. No. 3213 of 2021) challenging the rejection was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Tribunal, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Appellant's attempt to file another I.A. (No. 3640 of 2022) was also dismissed, as the issue had already been settled.

2. Applicability of the Judgment in "Puneet Kaur vs. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.":
The Appellant argued that the judgment in "Puneet Kaur vs. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." should be applied retrospectively. However, the Tribunal found that the judgment had no bearing on this case because the Resolution Plan had already incorporated the Appellant's claim of booking 50 units. The Tribunal noted that the liability towards homebuyers who have not filed their claims exists and should be included in the Information Memorandum, but in this case, the Appellant's booking was already reflected in the Resolution Plan.

3. Principle of Res Judicata:
The Tribunal emphasized that the principle of res judicata applies to different stages of the same proceeding. Since the Appellant's claim had been finally rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it could not be re-agitated in the same CIRP through another I.A. The Tribunal cited several judgments affirming that once a decision has attained finality, it cannot be reopened based on a subsequent judgment overruling an earlier one.

4. Execution of Transfer Documents for the 9 Units:
The Tribunal noted that the Resolution Professional had acknowledged the Appellant's possession of 9 units and stated that necessary transfer documents would be executed if the Appellant complied with the terms and conditions of the Resolution Plan. Therefore, this prayer in I.A. No. 3640 of 2022 needed no further consideration.

Conclusion:
The Adjudicating Authority's rejection of I.A. No. 3640 of 2022 was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the principle of res judicata barred the Appellant from re-litigating the same issue, and the judgment in "Puneet Kaur vs. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." did not alter the outcome.