TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding this Appeal are: i. By order dated 20.08.2019, M/s Today Homes Noida Pvt. Ltd, the Corporate Debtor was admitted under insolvency. Publication was made by the IRP on 25.08.2019 inviting claims from the creditors/stakeholders. Last date for submission of claims, as per Form A was 03.09.2019. ii. On 04.03.2020, in the 6th meeting of the CoC, the Resolution Plan submitted by consortium of "One Group" was approved. The Resolution Professional filed an I.A. No. 2518 of 2021 under Section 30(6) for approval of the Resolution Plan. iii. On 16.06.2021, the Appellant filed its claim in Form CA. The Resolution Professional rejected the claim on 24.03.2021 on the ground that same was time barred and the Resolution Plan has already been approved on 03.03.2021. iv. Appellant filed an I.A. No. 3213 of 2021 challenging the rejection of its claim, which application was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 21.09.2021. The Appellant filed an appeal, which too was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 10.11.2021. The order dated 10.11.2021 passed by this Appellate Tribunal was challenged by the Appellant bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jected, it was not open for the Appellant to file another I.A. which prays for almost same reliefs. In the Information Memorandum, it was noticed that the Appellant have booked 50 units. Respondent No.1 having accepted the allotment of 9 units as valid, Respondent No.1 shall undertake the registration of 9 units, which are already in possession of the Appellant, if the Appellant complies with the terms and conditions of the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Successful Resolution Applicant contends that application filed by the Appellant being I.A. No. 3640 of 2022 has rightly been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. Issue pertaining to belated claim filed by individual homebuyers as well as the Appellant has already been settled by this Appellate Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this very CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, which question cannot be allowed to be reopened. The judgment of this Tribunal in "Puneet Kaur vs. K.V. Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." has no bearing in the present case. Appellant is not a genuine homebuyer. The Appeal is barred in terms of the doctrine of res judicata. The Appellant cannot be permit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced the fact that although Resolution Plan was approved on 04.03.2020 whereas the Appellant filed its claim on 16.06.2020. Civil Appeal No. 7907 of 2021 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment and order dated 12.01.2022, which is to the following effect: "ORDER The Committee of Creditors has approved the Resolution Plan on 4th March, 2020 whereas the appellant filed a claim on 16th June, 2020 which was rejected by the Resolution Professional on 19th April, 2021. The adjudicating authority dismissed the application filed by the appellant which was upheld by the appellate tribunal. Aggrieved by which this appeal has been filed. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel submitted that as per section 31 of the IPC, the Resolution Plan becomes final only after it is approved by the adjudicating authority. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. Reported in (2021) 9 sec 657. After examining the said judgment and after hearing Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed." 9. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verruled the earlier judgment." 11. When we look into the prayers made in I.A. No 3640 of 2022, it is clear that the substantial prayer in the application is admission of the claim of the Appellant and to consider the said claim in the Resolution Plan. When we look into the prayers which were made by the Appellant in I.A. No. 3213 of 2021, the main prayer in the said application was also direction to the Resolution Professional to consider the claim of the Appellant to admit the claim. 12. As noted above, the I.A. No. 3213 of 2021 was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority, by this Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was passed on the Appeal filed by the Appellant, which has already been extracted by us. The decision of the Adjudicating Authority refusing to admit the claim of the Appellant was upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court which issue cannot be allowed to be reagitated by the Appellant in the same CIRP by means of another I.A. being I.A. No. 3640 of 2022. The principle of res judicata applies to the same proceeding also, it is a settled law. 13. We may refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "(2005) 1 SCC 787, Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cluded that the principle of resjudicata is applicable in IBC also. 22. It is undoubtedly true that once the proceedings are concluded in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same cannot be reopened and recalled on the ground passed on subsequent judgment which overruled the earlier judgment. 34. "The Apex Court in Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) Through LRs Vs. Venkatareddy (Dead) Through LRs referred supra ... "34. This judgment and order of the High Court also attained finality as it was not challenged by the respondents any further. Thus, in our view, the question of reconsideration of the validity of the tenancy certificate under Section 38-E(2) so far as Appellants 1 and 3 are concerned, could not arise in any subsequent proceedings whatsoever. More so, the entitlement of the said Appellants 1 and 3 to claim restoration of possession also cannot be reopened/questioned., as their entitlement to that effect had attained finality as the judgment and order of the High Court dated 28-4-2000, wherein their right to claim restoration of possession had been upheld, was not challenged by the respondents any further. .. 38. In view of the above factual matrix, we are of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts own judgment. 36. In the matter of "Union of India Vs. Maj. S.P. Sharma", the Hon'ble Apex Court held a decision rendered by the Competent Court cannot be challenged in a collateral proceeding for the reason that it is not permissible to do so as and when chooses and the finality of the proceeding would seize to have any meaning. 37. Applying the principle laid in the above judgment to the present facts, to give quietus to the dispute and to avoid abuse of the process of Court to challenge the judgment which attained finality in a collateral or incidental proceeding, the appellants must be non-suited. 38. In view of the principle laid down in the above judgements, the principle of resjudicata, though a part of CPC, it would be applicable to the proceeding of this Tribunal and IBC. Only to prevent the abuse of process of law and give a finality to any proceeding, or orders, and to avoid an endless litigation to frustrate the very object of enacting IBC, the claim of appellants is liable to be rejected."" 16. We, thus, are of the view that substantial prayer in I.A. No. 3640 of 2022 made by the Appellant to admit the claim of the Appellant having been finally rejected upto ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s reflected in the Resolution Plan itself which indicate that the said was part of the Information Memorandum. Learned counsel for the Successful Resolution Applicant has relied on Para 18.15 of the Resolution Plan where the booking of 50 units by the Appellant has been noticed. Para 18.15 of the Resolution Plan is extracted as follows: "18.15 Contingent liability "ii. According to the Information Memorandum two Allottees, SP Propbuild LLP and Jagmohan have booked 50 units and 16 units respectively at a very low price of around INR 1915 per square feet of Super Area. Other bookings in the project are done at an average rate of around INR 4000 per square feet of super area. These transactions seem to be undervalued transactions, and have a big financial impact on the Resolution Plan. The claims of these Allottees have not been received by the Resolution Professional till the date of submission of this Resolution Plan to the COC. In the event claims of these Allottees are received before the Plain Effective Date, a maximum of 50% of Principal Amount received from these Allottees would be refunded by the Corporate Debtor in quarter 12 subject to condition 18.4 (LOI) unless they ar....