Dismissal of Application for Relief Beyond Scope of NCLAT Directions

The Tribunal dismissed the application as the relief sought for payment of salary, gratuity, provident fund, and outstanding loan during the CIRP period, release of personal guarantees and mortgaged properties, and compliance with the NCLAT order were found to be beyond the scope of NCLAT directions. The Resolution Applicant had already fulfilled the necessary requirements as per the NCLAT order, leading to the dismissal based on res judicata principles.

---

---

Issues:
1. Relief sought for payment of salary, gratuity, provident fund, and outstanding loan during CIRP period.
2. Orders for release of personal guarantees and mortgaged properties.
3. Compliance with NCLAT order regarding Resolution Plan implementation.
4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in granting reliefs beyond NCLAT directions.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The applicant sought relief for payment of salary, gratuity, provident fund, and outstanding loan during the CIRP period. The NCLT Chennai Bench had approved the Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant. The Hon'ble NCLAT partly allowed the appeal and directed compliance with its order. The respondent opposed the application, stating it was beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Tribunal found the relief sought not within the NCLAT directions, as the Resolution Applicant had filed the required affidavit. The applicant's claims had been considered and rejected by the NCLAT, leading to the dismissal of the application.

Issue 2:
The applicant also sought orders for the release of personal guarantees and mortgaged properties. The respondent argued that the application was misleading, as the NCLAT had already addressed the issue by directing the Resolution Applicant to file an affidavit ensuring Resolution Plan completion, irrespective of tax set-off. The Tribunal noted that the relief sought was not covered by the NCLAT order and, as such, dismissed the application.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal examined the compliance with the NCLAT's order regarding the Resolution Plan implementation. It was highlighted that the Resolution Applicant had filed the necessary affidavit as directed, ensuring the Resolution Plan's completion regardless of tax set-off. The Tribunal emphasized that the relief sought by the applicant was not aligned with the NCLAT's directives, leading to the dismissal of the application.

Issue 4:
The jurisdiction of the Tribunal in granting reliefs beyond the NCLAT directions was a crucial aspect of the case. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims had already been considered and rejected by the NCLAT. As the Resolution Applicant had complied with the NCLAT's order by filing the required affidavit, the Tribunal concluded that the relief sought by the applicant was not within the scope of the NCLAT directions, resulting in the dismissal of the application on grounds of res judicata.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing that the relief sought was not in line with the NCLAT's directives, as the Resolution Applicant had already fulfilled the necessary requirements as per the NCLAT order. The dismissal was based on the principle of res judicata, as the applicant's claims had been previously considered and rejected by the NCLAT.

---