Execution through statutory mechanism, not fresh petition, bars re-litigation of closed company-law issues.

A subsequent company petition cannot be used to execute or reopen reliefs arising from an earlier final order when the statutory execution route is available. The earlier order had granted only limited relief and confined any fresh petition to issues arising from the EGM directions; the later petition instead sought to re-agitate matters already decided or deemed refused. Enforcement had to proceed under Section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rules 56 and 57 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. Explanation V to Section 11 CPC and Order II Rule 2 barred splitting claims and re-litigating closed issues, so the later petition was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a subsequent company petition could be maintained to execute or re-agitate reliefs arising from an earlier final order, in view of the statutory execution mechanism and the bar of res judicata and Order II Rule 2.

Analysis: The earlier final order granted only limited relief and expressly confined any fresh petition to grievances arising from the EGM directions. The later petition was founded on alleged non-compliance with that order and substantially sought to reopen matters already dealt with or deemed refused in the earlier proceedings. The proper course for enforcing the earlier order was the statutory execution mechanism under Section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rules 56 and 57 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, and not a fresh company petition. Explanation V to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 treated ungranted reliefs as refused, and Order II Rule 2 also barred splitting and re-agitating claims that ought to have been pursued earlier.

Conclusion: The subsequent company petition was not maintainable and was rightly rejected as an impermissible attempt to execute and re-litigate closed issues.

---