Finality and res judicata barred a belated challenge to liquidation after prolonged non-implementation of the resolution plan.

Finality and res judicata barred a challenge to liquidation where the same grievances had already been rejected in earlier proceedings and those orders had attained finality. The tribunal treated the fresh appeal as an impermissible re-agitation of concluded issues and a collateral attack on binding inter partes orders. Liquidation was also upheld because the one-time payment proposal was submitted only after hearing had concluded and orders were reserved, had not been approved by lenders or placed for variation of the approved plan, and came after more than three years of non-implementation and failure to secure required approvals. The Code's time-bound resolution and value-preservation objectives supported liquidation, and the challenge failed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was barred by finality and res judicata in view of the earlier orders declining interference and directing expeditious consideration of liquidation. (ii) Whether the liquidation order was vitiated by non-consideration of the later one-time payment proposal and by any alleged delay attributable to pending regulatory approvals.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was barred by finality and res judicata in view of the earlier orders declining interference and directing expeditious consideration of liquidation.

Analysis: The same core grievances had already been raised and rejected in earlier proceedings. The resolution plan had remained unimplemented for a long period, and the earlier appellate and supreme court orders had attained finality. The present challenge was treated as an attempt to re-litigate concluded issues and to mount a collateral attack on binding inter partes orders.

Conclusion: The appeal was barred by finality and res judicata, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the liquidation order was vitiated by non-consideration of the later one-time payment proposal and by any alleged delay attributable to pending regulatory approvals.

Analysis: The one-time payment proposal was filed only after hearing in the liquidation application had concluded and orders had been reserved. It had not been approved by the lenders or placed before the competent forum for any variation of the approved resolution plan. The successful resolution applicant had also failed for more than three years to implement the plan or secure the requisite approvals within the statutory and contractual timeline. In these circumstances, liquidation was held to be consistent with the Code's objective of time-bound resolution and value preservation, and the plea of natural justice did not aid the appellant.

Conclusion: The liquidation order was upheld, and the challenge to the rejection of the belated payment proposal failed, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The Court found no infirmity in the liquidation order, held that the challenge was an impermissible re-agitation of concluded issues, and sustained liquidation with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A successful resolution applicant cannot defeat liquidation by advancing a belated, unapproved payment proposal after prolonged non-implementation of an approved plan, and once earlier orders on the same controversy have attained finality, a subsequent challenge is barred by res judicata and the principle of finality.

---