Finality of resolution professional's possession and access barred re-agitation; direction for full access was set aside.

The direction requiring the Resolution Professional to ensure full access to the premises was unsustainable because possession and access had already attained finality under the earlier order, which had also been affirmed by dismissal of the appeal against it. The same question could not be re-agitated in subsequent proceedings, so that part of the order was set aside. However, any separate grievance by third parties claiming access to conduct business from the premises was left open to be pursued before the Adjudicating Authority in appropriate proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction requiring the Resolution Professional to ensure full access to the premises could be sustained when the Resolution Professional's possession and access had already attained finality.

Analysis: The possession and access secured by the Resolution Professional were treated as final by the earlier order and the dismissal of the appeal against that order. In that setting, the Respondent could not re-agitate the same question of possession and access. The order under challenge, so far as it required the Resolution Professional to ensure full access, could not stand. At the same time, any separate grievance of third parties claiming access to conduct business from the premises was left open to be pursued before the Adjudicating Authority in appropriate proceedings.

Conclusion: The direction to ensure full access was set aside and the appeal was partly allowed in favour of the Appellant.

---