Rajeev Sharma vs Deepak Gupta & Anr
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 541 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An application seeking clarification or modification of an earlier judgment, which in substance asks the court to quantify and alter the relief already granted in that judgment, is not maintainable by way of such an application; the relief already determined in the earlier judgment cannot be varied by a clarification application, and the applicant's remedy for non-payment of the amount directed lies elsewhere, namely in enforcing the existing direction.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Rajeev Sharma ...Appellants Versus Deepak Gupta & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : None.
For Respondents : Ms. Reshma Mittal, Erstwhile IRP in person.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
04.07.2024: I.A. No. 4308 of 2024
This application has been filed by the appellant praying for clarification,
following prayers have been made in the application:
PRAYER In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to pass the following order:
a. The order dated 09.09.2022, be clarified to the effect that the expenses incurred during the period from initiation of CIRP till the dismissal of the Application (i.e. from 04.05.2022 till 09.09.2022) shall be quantified and the order shall be complied within time specified by this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal;
Cont'd.../-
b. Such further and/or other order/s as this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present matter.
In the judgment dated 09.09.2022 in paragraph- 32 we have issued
following directions:-
32. Now coming to the submission of IRP regarding her fees and expenses, it is to be noted that the impugned order was passed on 04.05.2022 and the Appeal was immediately filed on 09.05.2022 and this Tribunal passed an interim order on 13.05.2022 directing the IRP not to constitute the CoC. Subsequently, by another order dated 03.06.2022, a direction was issued not to take any further steps in the CIRP process. In the impugned order Adjudicating Authority has directed the Financial Creditor to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- with the IRP. In addition to amount directed by Adjudicating Authority of Rs.2,00,000/-, the IRP shall be entitled to actual expenses incurred by her in publication and other actual expenses incurred by her. On submission of bill for actual expenses incurred by the IRP, Respondent No.1 (who filed Section 7 Application) shall make the payment of expenses within a period of two weeks.
With regard to IRP expenses whatever entitlement was found of the IRP,
the Court has already issued the directions in paragraph 32 as stated above.
2. The prayer made in the application is virtually prayer for modification
and quantification which cannot be done by means of an application. Counsel
for the applicant appearing in person submits that payments have not yet been
I.A. No. 4308 of 2024 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 541 of 2022 2 of 3 made. The remedy of the applicant lies elsewhere if the payment has not been
made with these observations we dismiss the application.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
harleen/NN
I.A. No. 4308 of 2024 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 541 of 2022 3 of 3
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