TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iction of Indian civilization, customs and art. It is for the said project, the Appellant, the Corporate Debtor, had approached the Respondent No. 2 (Kosamattam Finance Limited) for availing the financial assistance in the year 2016, for the purpose of the establishment and augmentation of, the aforesaid project of the agricultural theme park. 2. It is the case of the Appellant that, consequent to his approach, Respondent No. 2, is said to have sanctioned the financial assistance in the shape of a loan of Rs. 8 crores to the Corporate Debtor, on which the interest, was payable at 19% per annum, at a monthly rest, vide the sanction letter of Respondent No. 2 dated 24.02.2016. A loan agreement was executed between the parties on 01.03.2016, thereby settling the terms, that would be governing the loan sanctioned by the Respondent No. 2. 3. The Appellant had developed a case, that owing to the various external factors such as rampant flood of 2018 and 19, Nipah Virus outbreaks and the COVID-19 pandemic, which had resulted into a countrywide lockdown, the said project of an agricultural theme park received a setback in form of substantial reduction in daily footfall as a result of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hence clear that the petitioner has the right to file objections against Ext.P7 application and in such event, the adjudicating authority is bound to consider the objection on merits and take a decision on the admissibility or otherwise of Ext.P7 application after considering all relevant aspects, including those urged in this writ petition." 8. In response to the directions given by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala on 10.08.2022, advising the Appellant to approach the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to air his grievances by way of filing an objection to the proceedings under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016, the Appellant had preferred an application under Section 65 of the I & B Code, 2016, which was numbered as IA(IBC)285/KOB/2022. In the said application, preferred under Section 65 of the I & B Code, 2016, the Appellant had once again sought a relief of declaration that, the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, as initiated by Respondent No. 2, i.e., CP(IB) No. 6/2022 is fraudulent and with the malicious intention for the purposes other than for the resolution of the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor. 9. The relief, which was modulated by the Appellant in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Debtor in IA(IBC)/285/KOB/2022 and the reply statement filed in the Company Petition, we are of the considered opinion that the technical objection was raised through IA(IBC)/285/KOB/2022 only for the sake of objecting, which cannot be accepted. In view of what is stated above, we do not find any merit in IA(IBC)/285/KOB/2022 which is Dismissed as devoid of merit. 17. Coming to CP(IB)/06/KOB/2022, we are of the considered view that the application filed in the capacity as a 'Financial Creditor' for a 'financial debt' which is recoverable from the Corporate Debtor viz., M/s. Mangomeadows Agricultural Pleasure Land (P) Limited is a fit case for admission and initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The documents produced on record prove the disbursement of various loan facilities by the Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor and the failure to repay the loan. 11. What is agonizing for this Appellate Tribunal, is that, though the Appellant had challenged the proceedings under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016, by way of filing of a writ petition in which he was given the liberty to file an objection to the company petition before the Ld. NCLT, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 65 of the I & B Code, 2016, by an order of 25.01.2023, as well as allowing of the petition, under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016. But for the reasons best known to the Appellant, in the entire memorandum of appeal or any of the pleadings raised by the Appellant in the instant company appeal, as it was presented before the Registry of this Appellate Tribunal, the Appellant has not made even a single mention to the effect that, he had preferred a company appeal, as against the order of 25.01.2023, and that has been dismissed on 13.04.2023. Rather to the contrary, he just makes a converse pleading in para 7.8 of the Memorandum of Appeal, that he has not preferred any company appeal and the order of 25.01.2023 has attained finality. This will amount to be a deliberate concealment of material fact, at the hands of the Appellant by not bringing to the knowledge of this Appellate Tribunal, about the fact of the Appellant preferring an appeal earlier and the same having been dismissed by this Appellate Tribunal. 15. What is more surprising is that, by the time this company appeal was presented before this Appellate Tribunal i.e., on 17.10.2025, the factum of passing of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pex Court as reported in 2008, volume 12 SCC page 481 K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., it is settled law that a person who doesn't approach the court with clean hands and who deliberately knowing the facts intends to do a jugglery or manipulate, or manoeuvre or misrepresent them, has got no place in the court proceedings. Further, if the Appellant doesn't disclose all the material facts or he distorts the facts in order to mislead the court, the courts have got a right to reject the proceedings at its inception and not to hear such a litigant who is not fair to the Court/Ld. Tribunal. 19. The aforesaid observation, has been made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in para 49, 50, 51 & 52 of the said judgment, which is extracted hereunder: - 49. "Strongly disapproving" the explanation put forth by the petitioner and describing the tactics adopted by the Federation as "abuse of process of court", this Court observed: (All India State Bank Officers Federation case [1990 Supp SCC 336 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 429 : (1991) 16 ATC 454], SCC pp. 340-41, paras 9 & 11) "9. ... There is no doubt left in our minds that the petitioner has not only suppressed mate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... State of Punjab [(2003) 9 SCC 401 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 1112] this Court stated: (SCC p. 420, para 24) "24. In order to sustain and maintain the sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take the consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts in dealing with such matters is either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning a proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice." 52. In the case on hand, the appellant has not come forward with all the facts. He has chosen to state the facts in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of K.D. Sharma (Supra). Besides, what implication the order dated 25.01.2023 rejecting the application preferred under Section 65 of the I & B Code, 2016, and admitting of the application under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016, would have, on the instant appeal, can only be decided by this Appellate Tribunal subject to the condition that the complete case is projected by the Appellant before it, while agitating his cause in the instant company appeal, as against the impugned order of 17.09.2025, as rendered in IA(IBC)/114/KOB/2024, as preferred in CP (IB)/06/KOB/2022. 22. What is relevant is that, particularly when the proceedings of the company petition on admitting an applications filed under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016, has attained finality, in the absence of the challenge being given to it in the appellate proceedings, as pleaded in para 7.8, of the Appeal Book, and when his own appeal, which he had earlier preferred against order dated 25.01.2023 has been dismissed, in that eventuality, the interlocutory application IA(IBC)/114/KOB/2024 which is a successive applications preferred under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal is, as to whether there can be a successive application, which could be filed by the Appellant for consideration by the Ld. Tribunal for the same or a similar relief, when an application filed earlier for the same or a similar relief has already been rejected and the said order has attained finality on the dismissal of an appeal preferred by the Appellant. 25. Quite obviously the clear answer would be 'No', because a party to the proceedings cannot be permitted to abuse the judicial process by filing recurring applications, for the same cause of action or for the same relief, as it would vitiate the proceedings of the company petition and the judicial proceedings itself, owing to the fact, that once the earlier order has attained finality, the same cannot be permitted to be reopened by filing of a subsequent application, which is a case at hand, when the Appellant has filed IA(IBC)/114/KOB/2024, which has been rejected by the impugned order of 17.09.2025. 26. The Ld. Tribunal, after considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, had rightly came to the conclusion, that, the order of admission of the application filed under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016, bec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l has proceeded on the premise, that its order of 25.01.2023 has attained finality because no appeal was preferred. The relevant observation has been made by the Ld. Tribunal in para, 31 of the impugned order, which is extracted hereunder: - 31. At the outset, we have noted that the Applicant had already filed an application IA(IBC)/285/KOB/2022 under Section 65 of the Code during the Section 7 Petition, this Adjudicating Authority, after due consideration, admitted the petition under Section 7 in CP(IB)/6/KOB/2022 vide order dated 25.01.2023 on finding that financial debt existed, default exceeding Rs. 1 crore had occurred, and Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated, which order has since attained finality as no appeal was preferred before Hon'ble NCLAT under Section 61 of the Code. 30. The Ld. Tribunal, while ariving to the conclusion, upon the consideration of the facts and evidence on record in its entirety has concluded, that all the allegations relating to the loan disbursal conditions, accounting of the repayment, charging of interest the conduct of the Resolution Professional and the functioning of the Committee of Creditors in the CIRP process, hav....