9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 803 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyPrinciples of res judicata - seeking direction of this Tribunal against the Respondents to make payment of ₹ 9,64,94,779/- towards salary, provident fund, gratuity and proportionate shares towards the outstanding loan to the applicant - HELD THAT - It is clear that it is limited to only two aspects- (i) payment of license fee, and (ii) issue of setting up off losses in relation to Income Tax and that it is clear that all the claims and contentions raised by the applicant herein in the above-mentioned Appeals were rejected and the only argument allowed was that the Resolution Plan should be in compliance with the law of the land. It was mentioned in the order in the Appeal that the applicant has not been paid dues over ₹ 2.65 Crores towards his salary and unsecured loan of over ₹ 16 Crores and that he is both Financial Creditor as well as Operational Creditor. However, the Hon ble NCLAT passed an order for getting an affidavit from the Resolution Applicant (Respondent No.3) that the Resolution Applicant will be successfully completing the Resolution Plan whether Resolution Applicant gets set off under Income Tax or not. It is also found from the records that in compliance with the said order, the Resolution Applicant has filed the Affidavit before this Tribunal, which was taken on record on 09.09.2020. This Tribunal finds that the reliefs sought by the applicant in this Application are not within the scope of directions issued by the Hon ble NCLAT, which requires the compliance of this Tribunal, as the Resolution Applicant has filed the affidavit as per the directions of the Hon ble NCLAT. It is presumed that the issue involved in the MA has already been raised before the Hon ble NCLAT and the same was rejected by the Hon ble NCLAT. Hence, the applicant is barred from filing any further application for the same cause of action, as it will hit by res judicata. Application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Relief sought for payment of salary, gratuity, provident fund, and outstanding loan during CIRP period. 2. Orders for release of personal guarantees and mortgaged properties. 3. Compliance with NCLAT order regarding Resolution Plan implementation. 4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in granting reliefs beyond NCLAT directions. Analysis: Issue 1: The applicant sought relief for payment of salary, gratuity, provident fund, and outstanding loan during the CIRP period. The NCLT Chennai Bench had approved the Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant. The Hon'ble NCLAT partly allowed the appeal and directed compliance with its order. The respondent opposed the application, stating it was beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Tribunal found the relief sought not within the NCLAT directions, as the Resolution Applicant had filed the required affidavit. The applicant's claims had been considered and rejected by the NCLAT, leading to the dismissal of the application. Issue 2: The applicant also sought orders for the release of personal guarantees and mortgaged properties. The respondent argued that the application was misleading, as the NCLAT had already addressed the issue by directing the Resolution Applicant to file an affidavit ensuring Resolution Plan completion, irrespective of tax set-off. The Tribunal noted that the relief sought was not covered by the NCLAT order and, as such, dismissed the application. Issue 3: The Tribunal examined the compliance with the NCLAT's order regarding the Resolution Plan implementation. It was highlighted that the Resolution Applicant had filed the necessary affidavit as directed, ensuring the Resolution Plan's completion regardless of tax set-off. The Tribunal emphasized that the relief sought by the applicant was not aligned with the NCLAT's directives, leading to the dismissal of the application. Issue 4: The jurisdiction of the Tribunal in granting reliefs beyond the NCLAT directions was a crucial aspect of the case. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims had already been considered and rejected by the NCLAT. As the Resolution Applicant had complied with the NCLAT's order by filing the required affidavit, the Tribunal concluded that the relief sought by the applicant was not within the scope of the NCLAT directions, resulting in the dismissal of the application on grounds of res judicata. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing that the relief sought was not in line with the NCLAT's directives, as the Resolution Applicant had already fulfilled the necessary requirements as per the NCLAT order. The dismissal was based on the principle of res judicata, as the applicant's claims had been previously considered and rejected by the NCLAT.
|
