Jaishree vs Sandeep Kumar Bhatt (Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2236 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A party that has already invoked the statutory appellate remedy against an order, and has had that challenge finally decided up to the Supreme Court, may not file a fresh appeal against the same order; such a second appeal is an abuse of process, and the Tribunal's power under the statutory limitation regime does not permit condonation of delay to revive it. Counsel advising litigants bear a duty not to abet the abuse of process, and a litigant who persists in pursuing a successive appeal against an order already finally adjudicated, after the Tribunal has indicated its view, may be visited with costs against both the party and counsel.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Hari Singh Thakur ...Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Kumar Bhatt Resolution Professional & Anr ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg and Mr. Pulkit Atal, Advocates
For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Verma and Mr. Saksham T., Advocates for R2 Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari, Advocate for R-1/RP
With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2237 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8413 of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF: Jaishree ...Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Kumar Bhatt Resolution Professional & Anr ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg and Mr. Pulkit Atal, Advocates
For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Verma and Mr. Saksham T. and Mr. R N L, Advocates Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari, Advocate for R-1
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
05.12.2024 I.A. No. 8409 of 2024 This is an application praying for
condonation of 229 days delay in filing the Appeal.
This application discloses startling facts which need to be specially
noticed by this Court to find out the manner in which the statutorily rights of
filing the Appeal under Section 61 is being used in the present case. These
very appellant have filed a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 732 of 2024
against the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by National Company Law
Tribunal, New Delhi-IV in I.A. No. 3063 of 2022 which appeal was heard and
disposed of by this Tribunal by its Judgment dated 07.08.2024 in Company
Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 732 of 2024 and 733 of 2024 against the
judgment of this Tribunal on 07.08.2024, these Appeals were filed also in the
Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.10191 of 2024 and Civil Appeal No.
10213 of 2021 which appeals were dismissed on 13.09.2024.
The present Appellants has again filed these Appeals against the same
judgment dated 28.02.2024 against which the appeals were filed in this
Tribunal being Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 732 of 2024 and 733 of
2024 with the present application praying for condonation of 229 days delay
in filing the delay. The jurisdiction to condone the delay vested in this Tribunal
is only 15 days as per Section 61(2) proviso. The present Appellants have
already challenged the same order 28.02.2024 passed by National Company
Law Tribunal, New Delhi-IV, in the same proceeding by which application
against the Personal Guarantors were admitted initiating Insolvency
Resolution Process.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant sought to contends that there are
certain other grounds which could be raised in the appeal on the basis of the
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2236 & 2237 of 2024 2 of 4 judgment of the NCLT in CP(IB) No.581/MB/2023 Bank of Maharashtra Vs.
Dilip Raghunath Pol dated 27.08.2024.
The question in the present appeal in I.A. which has been filed by the
Appellant being I.A. No. 8409 of 2024 and 8413 of 2024 is for condonation of
229 days delay in filing the appeal. The appellants had already filed Appeals
against the same order before this Tribunal which were disposed of by this
Tribunal by judgment dated 07.08.2024 which have been filed as Annexure
at page 170 of the Appeal Paper Book, an against which order two appeals
were filed in the Supreme Court which were dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by order dated 13.09.2024 which is as follows:
"Order We do not find any good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and, hence, the present appeals are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
Appellant having already availed the remedy of appeal and in this
Tribunal and up to the Supreme Court against the same order we fail to see
that how the Appellant can filed the present appeal again challenging the
same order which attained finality before this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
The Counsel who advice their clients have also duty to advice that
litigants may not abuse the process of law. When earlier appeals were filed
and decided which has attained finality. We are of the view that no reasonable
persons could have advice the litigant to file appeal against the same order
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2236 & 2237 of 2024 3 of 4 against which an appeal was earlier filed by same appellants which had
attained finality.
We find the present case a case of clear abuse of process and glaring
facts which are reflected in the present appeal deserves application to be
dismissed with cost.
Learned Counsel who was appearing for the applicant still continued to
argue the matter, even after we have dictated the order indicating our view.
That the present case is nothing but abuse the process of court. We thus,
impose cost on the Appellants as well as Counsel appearing for the Appellant
to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund within one month
Rs.50,000/- each.
There is no cause for the condoning the delay. Delay condonation
application is rejected. Memo of Appeal is also rejected with cost as indicated
above.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) pks/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2236 & 2237 of 2024 4 of 4
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free