Appeal Dismissed: Time-barred claim settled by Adjudicating Authority, Appellate Tribunal, and Supreme Court

The appeal was dismissed as the Appellant's claim was deemed time-barred and already settled by the Adjudicating Authority, Appellate Tribunal, and Supreme Court. The judgment in "Puneet Kaur vs. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." was found inapplicable as the Resolution Plan had already accounted for the Appellant's claim. The principle of res judicata prevented the Appellant from re-litigating the issue, and the request for transfer documents for 9 units was deemed unnecessary. The rejection of the appeal was upheld based on these grounds.

---

---

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.

---