Finality of resolution plan bars reopening settled claims, repeated challenges, and collateral attacks on approved insolvency terms.

Once a resolution plan attains finality under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, its terms bind the parties and cannot be reopened in collateral proceedings. Repeated attempts to recall earlier orders or relitigate the approved plan were treated as impermissible because no new legal or factual basis was shown and the same controversy had already been decided. The Tribunal also noted that claims and payout disputes settled through the approved plan could not be expanded outside its terms, and that re-agitation was barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal seeking recall of the order dated 03.10.2024 could be entertained when the earlier orders approving and enforcing the resolution plan had attained finality; (ii) Whether GNIDA could reopen the question of its claim as a secured operational creditor and the quantum payable under the approved resolution plan; (iii) Whether the appellant's repeated challenges were barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal seeking recall of the order dated 03.10.2024 could be entertained when the earlier orders approving and enforcing the resolution plan had attained finality.

Analysis: The approval of the resolution plan had already been upheld or left undisturbed in earlier proceedings, and subsequent attempts to challenge the same directions were found to raise no new factual or legal basis. The Tribunal treated the earlier orders as having attained finality and found the present challenge to be a attempt to unsettle settled proceedings.

Conclusion: The appeal could not be entertained and failed on finality of the earlier orders.

Issue (ii): Whether GNIDA could reopen the question of its claim as a secured operational creditor and the quantum payable under the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the dispute regarding GNIDA's status and the amount payable had already been considered in the plan approval and in later proceedings. After approval under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the plan bound the parties, and no additional burden could be imposed on the successful resolution applicant outside the approved terms. The challenge to the amount payable was therefore not open in this appeal.

Conclusion: GNIDA could not reopen its secured creditor claim or seek a higher payout beyond the approved resolution plan.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant's repeated challenges were barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the same issues had already been litigated in earlier appeals and had reached finality, including before the Supreme Court. Re-agitation of the same controversy was held to be barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata and was found to be impeding implementation of the resolution plan.

Conclusion: The present appeal was barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to interfere with the enforcement of the approved resolution plan, dismissed the appeal, rejected the interlocutory application seeking conditional modification, and imposed costs on GNIDA for obstructing implementation.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a resolution plan attains finality, its terms bind the parties and cannot be reopened in collateral proceedings on issues already decided or capable of being raised earlier.

---