Sp Propbuild Llp vs Rabindra Kumar Mintri Resolution ... on 17 October, 2025

[Cites 25, Cited by 0]

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Sp Propbuild Llp vs Rabindra Kumar Mintri Resolution ... on 17 October, 2025

These appeals have been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Principal Bench, New Delhi) by which I.A.4815/PB/2023 & I.A.4167/PB/2024 filed by the appellant in C.P. (IB) No.923/PB/2018 has been dismissed. The present appeals arise out of third round of litigation initiated at the instance of the appellant.

2. The background facts of the case giving rise to the appeals need to be noted for deciding the issues raised in these appeals are:

i. The corporate debtor, Today Home Noida Private Limited, launched a Real Estate Project, namely "Today Homes Rich Residencies" located at Sector 135, Noida.

ii. Appellant had paid consideration towards allotment of total 50 flats in the project in the year 2012. Out of total 50 flats, the possession of 9 flats was given to the appellant in the year 2018.

iii. On an application filed under Section 7, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor commenced vide order dated 20.08.2019. The respondent Ravindra Kumar Mantri was appointed as a Resolution Professional (RP_ in the CIRP.

iv. Respondent No. 1 has published 'Form-A' dated 24.08.2019 inviting claims. Last date for submission of the claim was 03.09.2019.

v. On 06.11.2019, RP published 'Form-G'. Information memorandum published by RP was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

vi. R-2 namely one group consortium comprising of Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain and Mr. Apoorv Jain submitted resolution plan. The CoC in its meeting dated 04.03.2020 approved the resolution plan of R-2 with 100% voting shares.

vii. On 18.04.2020, RP filed I.A.2518/2021 before the adjudicating authority seeking approval of the resolution plan.

viii. On 16.06.2020, appellant filed its claim before the RP in 'Form-C'.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 2 of 35 ix. RP on 24.03.2021, rejected the claim of the appellant having been filed with delay of 281 days, aggrieved by the letter of the RP rejecting the claim, appellant filed an I.A.3213/2021, before the NCLT seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim and direction to the RP to consider the claim of the appellant.

x. Adjudicating authority vide order dated 21.09.2021, dismissed the I.A.3213/2021. Against the order of NCLT dated 21.09.2021, appellant filed Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.901/2021, which came to be dismissed on 10.11.2021. Appellant filed a Civil Appeal No.7907/2021, challenging the order of the NCLT before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which appeal came to be dismissed on 20.12.2021. While dismissing the appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "appellant is at liberty to pursue any other remedy as available to him under the law". xi. Appellant filed a fresh application being I.A.3640/2022, before the NCLT seeking directions against the RP to admit the claim in view of the subsequent development of law as laid down by this Tribunal in 'Puneet Kaur, through her Attorney Amrit Pal Singh' Vs. 'KD Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.' in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.390/2022. xii. The I.A.3640/2022 was dismissed by the NCLT on 30.11.2022, which order was challenged by the appellant by Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.1529/2022.

xiii. The Noida filed an I.A.3615/2022 praying to reject the resolution plan.

Further I.A.4172/2022 was filed by the Noida seeking a direction to RP Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 3 of 35 to make the payment of amount due and payable towards the outstanding dues.

xiv. This Tribunal vide its judgment dated 04.07.2023, dismissed the Comp.

App. (AT) (Ins.) No.1529/2022. Aggrieved by the order of this Tribunal dated 04.07.2023, Civil Appeal No.4650/2023 was filed by the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which appeal also came to be dismissed on 21.08.2023.

xv. While the resolution plan of the SRA was pending consideration before the NCLT appellant on 28.08.2023 filed an I.A.4815/2023, challenging the resolution plan.

xvi. Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered a judgment on 12.02.2024, in 'Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority' Vs. 'Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr.' reported in [(2024) 6 SCC 767] holding that Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority is a secured creditor and the resolution plan which was approved in the above case and was challenged by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority was sent back to the CoC for resubmission.

xvii. The I.A.2518/2021 was filed by the RP for approval of the plan as well as I.A.3615/2022 and I.A.4172/2022 filed by the Noida came for consideration before the NCLT and NCLT vide order dated 05.03.2024, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority' (supra) sent the plan back to the CoC for resubmission. In the light of the observation of the Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 4 of 35 Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 54b and 54c of the judgment in 'Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority' (supra). xviii. The order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the NCLT was challenged by the appellant by filing Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.795/2024, where it challenged the order passed by NCLT in I.A.2518/2021. The appeal filed by the appellant along with several other appeals filed by other homebuyers came for consideration before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide its judgment dated 08.05.2024 disposed of the appeal upholding the order dated 05.03.2024. This Tribunal while disposing of the appeal on 08.05.2024 directed the adjudicating Authority to consider the applications pending before the adjudicating authority, including the application filed by the appellant. xix. After judgment of this Tribunal dated 08.05.2024, adjudicating authority heard the I.A.4167/PB/2024 & I.A. 4815/PB/2023 filed by the appellant and by the impugned order dated 22.01.2025, dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2025, these appeals have been filed.

3. We have heard learned sr. counsel, Mr. Ramji Srinivasan appearing for the appellant, learned sr. counsel, Mr. Sunil Fernandes appearing for the SRA as well as learned counsel Mr. Harish Taneja appearing for the RP.

4. Learned sr. counsel, Mr. Ramji Srinivasan appearing for the appellant challenging the impugned order submits that the adjudicating authority erred in rejecting the IAs filed by the appellant. It is submitted that appellant's belated claim was not considered in earlier rounds since the resolution plan Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 5 of 35 was already approved by the CoC. Vide order dated 05.03.2024, resolution plan has been sent back to the CoC for resubmission and this Tribunal in its judgment dated 08.05.2024 has categorically held that resolution plan approved on 03.03.2024 is no longer in existence hence there was no reason for not allowing the prayer made by the appellant in his application for amendment seeking acceptance of belated claim of the appellant. The orders passed by the NCLT, NCLAT and Hon'ble Supreme Court in earlier two rounds of litigation initiated by filing applications by the appellant shall not operate a res judicata with respect to objection filed by the appellant and the amendment application filed therein due to the reason that by remittance of the plan to the CoC for fresh consideration, there is a new cause of action and the earlier adjudication shall neither operate res judicata nor prelude the consideration of a appellant's claim. It is submitted that approval of the resolution plan by the CoC on 03.03.2020 was the reason for not accepting the belated claim filed by the appellant which was settled up to Hon'ble Supreme Court but the approval of the resolution plan dated 03.03.2020 being no more in existence and the plan having been remitted back to the CoC, the claim of the appellant can very well be considered by the successful resolution applicant and the claim of the appellant can very well be included in the resolution plan. The resolution plan has been sent back by the adjudicating authority to the CoC for fresh consideration in which fresh consideration, appellant's belated claim can also be included. There is no prohibition in non-consideration of the claim of the appellant which was initially not accepted on account of the delay and approval of the plan by CoC Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 6 of 35 on 03.03.2020. Adjudicating Authority committed an error in treating the earlier orders passed by the NCLT, NCLAT and Hon'ble Supreme Court as res judicata. Principle of res judicata are not applicable when based on subsequent event, there arises a fresh cause of action due to subsequent event that is remittance of the plan to the CoC. I.A.4167/2024 was filed by the appellant for amending the I.A.4815/2023, which deserves to be allowed. Amendment which is based on fresh cause of action and based on subsequent event could not have been rejected. Adjudicating authority has not correctly decided the amendment application filed by the appellant. The adjudicating authority ought not to have gone into the merits of the application without first allowing the amendment application. Adjudicating authority failed to appreciate the effect of subsequent development. The doctrine of res judicata has also been incorrectly applied by the adjudicating authority. Learned counsel for the appellant relying in the amendments made in Regulation 13 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (for short the CIRP Regulations, 2016) amended with effect from 18.09.2023 submits that the claim of the appellant is no longer time barred and as per the amendment regulation, the claim could have very well be considered and admitted. Regulation 13(1)(b) of CIRP Regulations 2016 is a beneficial provision which squarely applies in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the adjudicating authority is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. It is prayed that appeal be allowed, judgment be set aside, and the RP be directed to verify and admit the claim of the appellant.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 7 of 35

5. Learned counsel for the SRA refuting the submission of the counsel for the appellant submits that appellant had already filed application in two round before the NCLT for admission/acceptance of its belated claim which applications were rejected by NCLT, which orders were confirmed by this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appellant was unsuccessful in first two rounds where he challenged the orders upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The rejection of the claim of the appellant having been final upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was not open for the appellant to again agitate his claim for acceptance. The order of the NCLT dated 05.03.2024, remitting the resolution plan for CoC for modification to take into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority', (supra) was only for the said limited purpose. Noida having been declared a secured creditor, the treatment of the Noida in the plan has to be modified in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and SRA to resubmit the plan giving effect to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The plan was remitted for no other purpose. RP was not entitled to receive any fresh claim or collate any claim. Appellant at the stage when plan has been sent back for resubmission before the CoC cannot file any amendments seeking a direction to accept his belated claim, which already has been rejected and became final up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Regulation 13(1)(b) of CIRP Regulations, 2016 is only prospective and shall be applicable only to claim filed after 18.09.2023, and the said regulation is inapplicable in the CIRP, the present CIRP having commenced in the year 2019, with plan approved in 2020. Adjudicating authority has rightly Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 8 of 35 dismissed both the applications. It is submitted that application filed by the appellant I.A.4815/PB/2023 having been held to be non-maintainable, any amendment prayed in the said application has also rightly been rejected. Learned sr. counsel Mr. Sunil Fernandes appearing for the SRA submits that there are 6 orders passed against the appellant by NCLT, NCLAT and Hon'ble Supreme Court, 3 orders in each round. NCLAT and Hon'ble Supreme Court have all up held the rejection of the belated claim of the appellant twice. First I.A.3213/2021 was rejected on 21.09.2021 by the NCLT, which order was upheld by the NCLAT on 10.11.2021 and Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.01.2022. Again, the other application was filed I.A.3640/2022, relying on the judgment of this Tribunal in 'Puneet Kaur' (supra), which also came to be dismissed on 30.11.2022 by the NCLT. Appeal was dismissed by NCLAT on 04.07.2023 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21.08.2023. The belated claim of the appellant having been rejected twice, it is not open for the appellant to pray for any direction by filing an amendment application to consider its belated claim. The NCLT vide order dated 05.03.2024 has remitted the resolution plan to the SRA for resubmission to give effect to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority' (supra), where Noida has been held to be a secured creditor. The consequence of the order passed by the NCLT on 05.03.2024 is not that all belated claim which had already rejected are reopened. The IBC provides for a time bound mechanism and the order dated 05.03.2024 cannot give any fresh cause of action to the appellant to seek the direction to consider its belated claim. Plan was remitted back on the application filed by Noida to Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 9 of 35 consider its claim as secured creditor. The order dated 05.03.2024, never intended that claims which have already been rejected and are belated could again be considered in the resolution plan. The appellant is misinterpreting the order dated 05.03.2024, which is wholly misconceived. Regulation 13 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 on which reliance is placed by the appellant amended on 18.09.2023 has no application. The amendment in the regulation is only prospective in nature and cannot give benefit to the appellant, where CIRP is initiated in the year 2019. The appellant also challenged order dated 05.03.2024 of the NCLT before this Tribunal in which appeal this Tribunal has not interfere with the order dated 05.03.2024. However, the application filed by the appellant being pending, this Tribunal in its order dated 08.05.2024 observed that it shall be open for the adjudicating authority, to consider the pending application. However, no opinion on merits were expressed by this Tribunal in its order dated 08.05.2024. Resolution plan was remitted to the CoC only to address the proper treatment of Noida as secured creditor as required by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority' (supra). Limited resubmission of the plan was intended to correct specific non-compliance and not to reopen the entire plan or entertain belated claim. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be rejected.

6. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. The facts as noted above indicate that CIRP against the corporate debtor commenced on 20.08.2019. Publication was made in inviting the claims on Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 10 of 35 24.08.2019 and last date for submission of the claim was 03.09.2019. After the RP collated the claims received issued in 'Form-G' on 06.11.2019 inviting expression of interest resolution plans were received and CoC approved the resolution plan on 04.03.2020 and application for approval of the resolution plan was also filed on 18.04.2020 I.A.2518/2021. Appellant filed its claim before the RP in 'Form-C' on 16.06.2020. The claim was rejected by the RP on 24.03.2021. RP vide letter dated 24.03.2021, rejected the claim as barred by time. I.A.3213/2021 was filed by the appellant seeking a direction to accept its claim, which application was disposed of as having become infructuous on 21.09.2021. Appeal before this Tribunal against the said order filed by the appellant was dismissed on 10.11.2021. Appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the NCLAT was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.01.2022. The order of the Supreme Court 12.01.2022 is as follows:

"The Committee of Creditors has approved the Resolution Plan on 4 th 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 SCC 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.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 11 of 35 The appeal is dismissed.

All pending applications stand disposed of. However, the appellant is at liberty to pursue any other remedy, as available to him under the law."

8. The appellant filed further applications after dismissal of the appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.01.2022. Appellant filed another application 3640/2022, in which application following prayers were made:

"i. Allow the instant Application;

ii. Direct Respondent No. 1 to admit the claim in light of the fresh facts and circumstances and;

Direct the Respondent No. 2 to consider the claims of the Applicant as part of the Resolution Plan; and; iv. Direct Respondent No. 1 to execute registration of conveyance deeds for the nine flats whose possession had been handed over to the Applicant;"

9. The above applications were also considered and dismissed by the adjudicating authority on 30.11.2022. Appeal against the said order being Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.1529/2022, was considered in detail and was dismissed by this Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 04.07.2023. The order of rejection of the application I.A.3640/2022 was upheld. Order passed by this Tribunal was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the Civil Appeal No.4650/2023 on 21.08.2023.

10. As noted above the application for approval of the resolution plan being I.A. No.2518/2021 was filed by the RP on 18.04.2020, the Noida who had allotted the land to the corporate debtor on which project was being considered had filed two applications before the adjudicating authority being I.A. No.3615/2022 & I.A. No.4172/2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered a judgment on 12.02.2024 in 'Greater Noida Industrial Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 12 of 35 Development Authority' (supra) which appeal was filed by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority challenging the order of NCLT, NCLAT by which applications filed by Noida to recall the order approving the resolution plan was rejected. Noida has also filed an application before the NCLT questioning the decision of the RP treating the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as an operational creditor. The appeal was decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority was a secured creditor.

11. When the I.A. 2518/2021 filed by the RP for approval of the resolution plan as well as I.A.3615/2022 and I.A.4172/2022 filed by the Noida came for consideration before the adjudicating authority, adjudicating authority relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority' (supra) and after relying on paragraph 54 and 55 by the judgment disposed of the application in following manner:

"Meanwhile, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed a judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 7590-7591/2023 Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Ors. on 12.02.2024. Para Nos. 54 & 55 of the said judgement reads as follows:-

"54.In our view the resolution plan did not meet the requirements of Section 30(2) of the IBC read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 for the following reasons: a. The resolution plan disclosed that the appellant did not submit its claim, when the unrebutted case of the appellant had been that it had submitted its claim with proof on 30.01.2020 for a sum of Rs.43,40,31,951/- No doubt, the record indicates that the appellant was advised to submit its claim in Form B (meant for operational creditor) in place of Form C (meant of financial creditor). But, assuming the appellant did not Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 13 of 35 heed the advice, once the claim was submitted with proof, it could not have been overlooked merely because it was in a different Form. As already discussed above, in our view the Form in which a claim is to be submitted is directory. What is necessary is that the claim must have support from proof. Here, the resolution plan fails not only in acknowledging the claim made but also in mentioning the correct figure of the amount due and payable. According to the resolution plan, the amount outstanding was Rs. 13,47,40,819/- whereas, according to the appellant, the amount due and for which claim was made was Rs. 43,40,31,951/- This omission or error, as the case may be, in our view, materially affected the resolution plan as it was a vital information on which there ought to have been application of mind. Withholding the information adversely affected the interest of the appellant because, firstly, it affected its right of being served notice of the meeting of the COC, available under Section 24 (3) (c) of the IBC to an operational creditor with aggregate dues of not less than ten percent of the debt and, secondly, in the proposed plan, outlay for the appellant got reduced, being a percentage of the dues payable. In our view, for the reasons above, the resolution plan stood vitiated. However, neither NCLT nor NCLAT addressed itself on the aforesaid aspects which render their orders vulnerable and amenable to judicial review.

b. The resolution plan did not specifically place the appellant in the category of a secured creditor even though, by virtue of Section 13-A of the 1976 Act, in respect of the amount payable to it, a charge was created on the assets of the CD. As per Regulation 37 of the CIRP Regulations 2016, a resolution plan must provide for the measures, as may be necessary, for insolvency resolution of the CD for maximization of value of its assets, including, but not limited to, satisfaction or modification of any security interest. Further, as per Explanation 1, distribution under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 30 must be fair and equitable to each class of creditors. Non- placement of the appellant in the class of secured creditors did affect its interest. However, neither Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 14 of 35 NCLT nor NCLAT noticed this anomaly in the plan, which vitiates their order.

c. Under Regulation 38 (3) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, a resolution plan must, inter alia, demonstrate that (a) it is feasible and viable; and (b) it has provisions for approvals required and the time-line for the same. In the instant case, the plan conceived utilisation of land owned by the appellant. Ordinarily, feasibility and viability of a plan are economic decisions best left to the commercial wisdom of the COC. However, where the plan envisages use of land not owned by the CD but by a third party, such as the appellant, which is a statutory body, bound by its own rules and regulations having statutory flavour, there has to be a closer examination of the plan's feasibility. Here, on the part of the CD there were defaults in payment of instalments which, allegedly, resulted in raising of demand and issuance of pre-cancellation notice. In these circumstances, whether the resolution plan envisages necessary approvals of the statutory authority is an important aspect on which feasibility of the plan depends. Unfortunately, the order of approval does not envisage such approvals. But neither NCLT nor NCLAT dealt with those aspects.

Relief

55. As we have found that neither NCLT nor NCLAT while deciding the application /appeal of the appellant took note of the fact that,- (a) the appellant had not been served notice of the meeting of the COC; (b) the entire proceedings up to the stage of approval of the resolution plan were ex parte to the appellant; (c) the appellant had submitted its claim, and was a secured creditor by operation of law, yet the resolution plan projected the appellant as one who did not submit its claim; and (d) the resolution plan did not meet all the parameters laid down in sub- section (2) of Section 30 of the IBC read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, we are of the considered view that the appeals of the appellant are entitled to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 24.11.2022 is set aside. The order dated Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 15 of 35 04.08.2020 passed by the NCLT approving the resolution plan is set aside. The resolution plan shall be sent back to the COC for re-submission after satisfying the parameters set out by the Code as exposited above. There shall be no order as to costs."

In the instant case, we are concerned with para nos. 54 (b) and (c) which relates to placing the Appellant in the category of secured creditors and for ensuring that the plan envisages necessary approvals of the statutory authority.

In the light of the relief granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court enunciated in para 55 above, we deem it appropriate to send the plan back to the CoC for resubmission after satisfying the parameters set out by the Code, in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order (para 54 b & c. supra). Accordingly, IA-2518/2021, IA-3615/2022 and IA- 4172/2022 stands disposed of in above terms."

12. The order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the adjudicating authority in the above three applications is the basis and foundation of the submissions advanced by both the parties in the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant on the one hand has contended that in view of the fact that resolution plan has been sent back for the CoC for resubmission, the said order gave fresh cause of action to the appellant to again agitate acceptance of his claim which was earlier rejected in earlier two rounds. It is submitted that principle of res judicata /constructed res judicata shall not be applicable since fresh cause of action arose to the appellant by virtue of order 05.03.2024 passed by the NCLT. To the contrary, the submission of the RP and SRA is that the said order of the NCLT dated 05.03.2024 did not give any cause of action to the appellant rather scope and ambit of the order was limited to resubmission of the plan after applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (supra). The order of Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 16 of 35 the NCLT 05.03.2024 did not contemplate acceptance of any new claim by appellant, nor it reopens the process for accepting any fresh claim. Appellant is misinterpreting the direction and order of this Tribunal dated 05.03.2024. We have already extracted relevant portion of the order dated 05.03.2024 after quoting the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, paragraph 54a, 54b & 54c and paragraph 55, the operative portion of the order dated 05.03.2024 is as follows:

"In the instant case, we are concerned with para nos. 54 (b) and (c) which relates to placing the Appellant in the category of secured creditors and for ensuring that the plan envisages necessary approvals of the statutory authority.

In the light of the relief granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court enunciated in para 55 above, we deem it appropriate to send the plan back to the CoC for resubmission after satisfying the parameters set out by the Code, in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order (para 54 b & c. supra). Accordingly, IA-2518/2021, IA-3615/2022 and IA- 4172/2022 stands disposed of in above terms."

13. The above order of the adjudicating authority thus has clearly noticed that appellant (Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority) was placed in category of secured creditors and the plan envisaged necessary approval of the statutory authority. The direction in the operative portion of the order is "in the light of the relief granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court enunciated in paragraph 55 above, we deem it appropriate to send the plan back to the CoC for resubmission after satisfying the parameters set out by the Court in the light of the Supreme Court order, paragraph 54b & 54c (supra). The order 05.03.2024 is thus clear that plan was sent back to the CoC for resubmission after satisfying the parameters in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 17 of 35 Supreme Court in paragraph 54b & 54c. Paras 54b & 54c as extracted above clearly indicate that in paragraph 54b Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (Noida Authority in the present case) is a secured creditor by virtue of Section 13A of the 1976 Act and further in paragraph 54C, it was held that resolution plan must inter alia demonstrate it is feasible and viable and it has provision for approval required and the timeline for the same. The law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority' (supra) is a law binding on all and the direction of adjudicating Authority 05.03.2024 was only to give effect to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to paragraph 54b & 54c. The plan was sent back to the CoC for resubmission after satisfying the parameters. Thus, SRA & CoC was to act in accordance with the direction of the NCLT 05.03.2024 and to ensure that the plan is in accord with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and complies the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 54b & 54c. The order of the NCLT cannot be read to mean that it has directed for fresh start of process from any earlier stage then consideration of the plan by the CoC for making in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The CIRP is a time bound process where the process progress in different stages. The submission which has been much pressed by the counsel for the appellant is that earlier rejection of the claim of the appellant as time barred was on account of approval of the resolution plan by the CoC on 02.03.2020, which approval having been no more in existence, the embargo against the Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 18 of 35 appellant's claims consideration has gone and there is no impediment in consideration of the claim of the appellant.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the judgment of this Tribunal dated 08.05.2024 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.795/2024 filed by the appellant and other appeals. Reference has been made to paragraph 21 of the judgment of this Tribunal where deciding the appeal of the appellant challenging the order dated 05.03.2024, following was held:

"21. As observed above, Applications by different Applicants including these two Appellant(s) being pending consideration, we are of the view that at this stage, it is not necessary for this Tribunal to express any opinion on the merits of the Applications, which are pending adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority. As observed above, resubmission of the Resolution Plan by the SRA has to await the decision of all other Applications, which was deferred by the Adjudicating Authority for consideration on 30.04.2024, as per order dated 05.03.2024 itself. There is no doubt that claim of the NOIDA has to be considered as per the direction dated 05.03.2024 as Secured Creditor, but since other Applications are still pending, we are of the view that ends of justice will be served in disposing of these Appeal(s) with following directions:

(I) The order dated 05.03.2024 passed by Adjudicating Authority is not being interfered with. (II) The Adjudicating Authority may consider and dispose of the Applications as noted in the order dated 05.03.2024, which were deferred for consideration on 30.04.2024 at an early date.

(III) The SRA, who has to resubmit the Resolution Plan before the CoC for consideration, will await the decision of Adjudicating Authority on the Applications, which are pending and as noted in the order dated 05.03.2024. The Resolution Plan be put before the CoC for consideration and voting after incorporating the directions of Adjudicating Authority in above regard. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 19 of 35 (IV) We request the Adjudicating Authority to consider the other Applications as noted in the order dated 05.03.2024 at an early date."

15. The above order of this Tribunal does not express any opinion on the merits of the application filed by the appellant pending before the adjudicating authority for consideration. Two applications which have been decided by the impugned order being I.A.4815/2023 & I.A.4167/2024, need to be noticed. In I.A. 4815/2023 filed by the appellant, following prayers were made:

"i. Allow the instant Objection Application against the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No. 1 before this Hon'ble Tribunal;

ii. Pass an order under Section 60(5) of the Code read with Rule 11 of NCLT rules thereby Rejecting the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant viz., Consortium of One Group as the same does not align with the provisions of the Code; and/or; iii. Pass such order(s) or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

16. The prayers made in the above application which is dated 28.08.2023 clearly indicate that application was filed as objection to the resolution plan which was filed before adjudicating authority for approval by the RP and the prayers made in the application was to reject the resolution plan submitted by R-2, the SRA. Another application 4167/2024, which was filed by the appellant on 20.08.2024, i.e., subsequent to the order of NCLT dated 05.03.2024 and order of this Tribunal dated 08.05.2024 noticed above. In the I.A.4167/2024, the appellant has prayed for following reliefs:

"A. Allow the Applicant to amend the application being I.A. No. 4815/2023 and place on record the amended application; and/or Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 20 of 35 B. In the alternative, take on record the present application and the contents of the present application may be read as part of application being I.A. No. 4815/2023; anc/or C. Pass any other such further orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

17. In paragraph 3 of the application, appellant has prayed for adding a relief in I.A.4815/2023, which is to the following effect:

"i. Allow the instant Objection Application against the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No. 1 before this Hon'ble Tribunal;

ii. Direct the Resolution Professional to consider and admit the claim of the Applicant; and/ or iii. Pass such order(s) or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

18. Thus, the relief which was sought to be added by I.A.4167/2024 was seeking a direction to RP to consider and admit the claim of the applicant/appellant. Adjudicating authority in the impugned order has framed two issues, which have been noted in paragraph 49, which are as follows:

"49. In view of the background facts and submissions advanced, we deem it proper to answer following two issues:

I. Whether the SRA has any right of being heard in these Applications?

II. Whether the Objection Application being IA(I.B.C)/4815(PB)2023 and Amendment (being IA(I.B.C)/4167(PB)2024) to the said objection application, are maintainable?"

19. On Issue No. I adjudicating authority has held that the SRA has right to being heard in the application and on Issue No. II adjudicating authority held that since the I.A.4815/2023 has been held as not maintainable, any Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 21 of 35 amendment is also not maintainable. In paragraph 59, following has been held:

"59. Now moving to the amendment application, we see that by this amendment the Applicant seeks to add the following relief to the application being I.A. No. 4815/2023:

Direct the Resolution Professional to consider and admit the claim of the Applicant.

This amendment application does not delete the prayers sought in I.A. No. 4815/2023 which being an objection to the Plan. Since we find IA 4815/ 2023 as not maintainable, consequently any amendment is also not maintainable."

20. With respect to addition of relief for direction to the RP for admission of claim, adjudicating authority has also held that applicant having lost already two rounds upto the Supreme Court for same relief. The applicant cannot seek to create a right already claimed and rejected. In paragraph 60 following has been held:

"60. So far as this addition of relief for direction to Resolution Professional for admission of claim is concerned, the Applicant has already lost two rounds of litigation up till the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the same relief. In second round of litigation, the adjudication on relief was declared to be barred by res judicata as the principle applies to different stages of the same proceedings. Applicant cannot seek to create a right already claimed and rejected multiple times."

21. On submission of the appellant on sub-Regulation 1(b) of Regulation 13 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, adjudicating authority held that the said regulation is prospective which was inserted on 18.09.2023 and has no application. In paragraphs 61, 62 & 63, following was observed by the adjudicating authority:

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025

22 of 35 "61. Now, the Ld. senior counsel Mr. Ramji Srinivasan has argued that since post filing of objection application I.A. No. 4815/2023, the following subsequent developments have taken place and in view of the same, amendment in question were necessitated:

a. This AA vide its order dated 05.03.2020 sent the plan back for resubmission by the SRA to the CoC for treatment of NOIDA as secured creditor in terms of Prabhjit Singh Soni judgment.

b. Sub-regulation (1B) was inserted to Regulation 13 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process of Corporate Persons) 2016, which reads as follows:

(1B) In the event that claims are received after the period specified under sub-

regulation (1) of regulation 12 and up to seven days before the date of meeting of creditors for voting on the resolution plan or the initiation of liquidation, as the case may be, the interim resolution professional or resolution professional, as the case may be, shall verify all such claims and categorise them as acceptable or non-acceptable for collation.

Further, Ld. senior counsel has relied upon catena of judgments to support the plea that in view of subsequent developments, amendment ought to be allowed.

62. So far as the first factual issue is concerned, it has been appreciated by the Hon'ble NCLAT in its judgment dated 08.05.2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 795 of 2024 that the Plan has been sent back only qua proper treatment of the NOIDA as secured creditor while so far as relief for admission of claims are concerned, including one of the Applicant, the same has been left with the discretion of this AA to deal with. We find no merit in seeking the amendment and re agitate the decided issue.

63. Secondly, on the legal development as above, we note that this subregulation was Inserted by Notification No. IBBI/2023-24/GN/REG106, dated 18th September, 2023 (w.e.f 18-09-2023). The amendment is prospective in nature and thus would not apply to the CIRP of the CD in present case, where CIRP commenced in 2019 and the Plan was approved on 03.03.2020.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 23 of 35 Also we find it relevant to note that as per precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, amendments creating new rights and liabilities are deemed to be prospective in nature. In a judgment in the matter of Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs State of Andhrapradesh and Anr. 2024 SCC online SC 47, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under:

59. Thus, whereas the prospective statute operates from the date of its enactments conferring new rights, the retrospective statute operates backwards and takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under the existing laws. A retroactive statute is one that does not operate retrospectively, however depending upon the status and nature of the events or transactions, the operation of the statute is extended or given effect from the date prior to its enactment. So far as the Amendment Act, 2018 is concerned, it has been made applicable specifically from the date of its notification i.e. 26.07.2018.

60. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra14, it was held by this Court that a statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in operation unless otherwise provided either expressly or by necessary implication. The ratio of the said judgment in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur was also followed in G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana.

In the present case, the amendment in question undoubtedly creates new right in favor of the claimants / creditors and impose liability upon the RP to verify these claims filed beyond period mentioned under regulation 12 and up till 7 days before the voting on plan in the CoC meeting. Hence, the amendment introducing sub-regulation (1B) of Regulation 13, is deemed to be prospective in nature and cannot be applied to present case."

22. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that adjudicating authority was bound to take into consideration the subsequent event, namely the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the NCLT sending the plan back to the CoC for resubmission and it is submitted that court was bound to take into consideration subsequent development after institution of proceeding. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 24 of 35 Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [(1975) 1 SCC 770] in 'Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu' Vs. 'Motor and General Traders'. In paragraph 4 of the judgment following was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

"4. ...We affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the Court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognisance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed. On both occasions the High Court, in revision, correctly took this view. The later recovery of another accommodation by the landlord, during the pendency of the case, has as the High Court twice pointed out, a material bearing on the right to evict, in view of the inhibition written into Section 10(3)(iii) itself. We are not disposed to disturb this approach in law or finding of fact."

23. The above was a case where landlord has filed suit for eviction to start automobile motor spares business, during pendency of the proceedings it was brought into notice of the High Court that landlord has come into possession a shop hence the petition for eviction is no longer maintainable. The above observations were made in context of the above facts relating to eviction suit, there can be no dispute to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, but present is a case of the IBC proceedings which are proceedings in rem. IBC proceedings proceed in different stages and rights accrue to stakeholders at different stages. The above judgment does not support the submission of the appellant that after the order dated 04.03.2024, appellant acquired any right to file a fresh claim in the CIRP. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 25 of 35

24. Another judgment relied is [(2002) 2 SCC 256], 'Omprakash Gupta' Vs. 'Ranveer B. Goyal', where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly. Following was observed in paragraph 11:

"11. The ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders [(1975) 1 SCC 770 : AIR 1975 SC 1409] this Court held that a fact arising after the lis, coming to the notice of the court and having a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it and brought diligently to the notice of the court cannot be blinked at. The court may in such cases bend the rules of procedure if no specific provision of law or rule of fair play is violated for it would promote substantial justice provided that there is absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. The Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. affirmed the proposition that the court can, so long as the litigation pends, take note of updated facts to promote substantial justice. However, the Court cautioned: (i) the event should be one as would stultify or render inept the decretal remedy, (ii) rules of procedure may be bent if no specific provision or fair play is violated and there is no other special circumstance repelling resort to that course in law or justice, (iii) such cognizance of subsequent events and developments should be cautious, and (iv) the rules of fairness to both sides should be scrupulously obeyed."

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 26 of 35

25. There cannot be any dispute to the above proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case. In the present case subsequent event as claimed by the appellant is order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the NCLT remitting the resolution plan for resubmission by the CoC's consideration of plan to satisfy itself that plan is in compliance with Section 30(2), is statutory obligation and discharge of said obligation, adjudicating authority found the plan not in conformity. In the meantime, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority' (supra) was delivered which also need to be complied hence for compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court plan was remitted to the CoC for resubmission. The direction of the adjudicating authority dated 04.03.2024 cannot give right to anyone to file fresh claim or reagitate the claim which was rejected in the same proceeding upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on various judgments on the amendment of pleadings. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [(2004) 6 SCC 415] Pankaja & Anr. Vs. 'Yellappa (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors.'. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has laid down principles of allowing an amendment, to the same effect is another judgment relied is 'Abdul Rehman & Anr.' Vs. 'Mohd. Ruldu & Ors.' reported in [(2012) 11SCC 341] where Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt upon Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC. Two more judgments on the amendment of the pleading has been relied. The judgment in [(2006) 4 SCC 385] 'Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.' Vs. 'K.K. Modi & Ors.' and [(2022 16 SCC 1] 'Life Insurance Corporation of India' Vs. 'Sanjeev Builders Private Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 27 of 35 Limited & Anr.' has been relied. In the subsequent judgment of 'Life Insurance Corporation of India' (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded its conclusion on the law of pleading after referring to various earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In paragraphs 71.2 to 71.4.4 following was laid down:

"71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17CPC.

71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:

71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided

(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,

(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and

(c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless:

71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration.

71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit.

71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence."

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 28 of 35

26. There can be no dispute to the proposition laid down in the above cases but the present is the case where by amendment relief was sought to be added in an application, which was earlier filed objecting to the resolution plan.

Application which was filed by the appellant being I.A.4815/2023 was held non-maintainable since resolution plan which was sought to be objected was remitted for reconsideration and the said application has become non- maintainable, the amendment application was also held non-maintainable. Insofar as prayers of the appellant for seeking and direction to reconsider the claim we have already noticed above that in two rounds application filed by the appellant from NCLT to the Hon'ble Supreme Court were rejected, where appellant challenged the decision of the RP of not accepting his claim in the CIRP. Appellant has also placed reliance on the two more judgments of the Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court on principle of res judicata. Reliance has been placed in [1970 SCC OnLine DEL 194]' 'Smt. Khazano & Ors.' Vs. 'Kani Ram & Ors.'. Delhi High Court in the above judgment while elaborating the principle of res judicata made following observations:

"The next question to be decided is whether the previous decisions will operate as res judicata and bar a decision of the question whether the decree is a nullity or not. The lower appellate Court has given no reasons as to why the previous decision of the executing Court dated 7-9-1960 and of the High Court dated 19-12-1962 will operate as res judicata. Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with the principle of res judicata. It lays down that a matter directly and substantially in issue in a suit if directly and substantially in issue in a previous suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any one of them claim, litigating under the same title and had been heard and finally decided by a competent Court, shall not be tried again. The petitioners contend that issues may be of fact, of law Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 29 of 35 and of mixed questions of fact and law. As regards the issues of law, in case they are pure questions of law having no relation to the circumstances, decision regarding such an issue will not operate as res judicata. The Supreme Court in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.S. Jeejeebhoy, 1970 R.C.R. 396 (2), while deciding the question of res judicata, held as under:--

"But the doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure: it cannot be exalted to the status of a legislative direction between the parties so as to determine the question relating to the interpretation of enactment effecting the jurisdiction of a Court finally between them, even though no question of fact or mixed question of law and fact and relating to the right in dispute between the parties has been determined thereby. A decision of a competent Court on a matter in issue may be res judicata in another proceeding between the same parties: the 'matter in issue' may be an issue of fact, an issue of law, or one of mixed law and fact. An issue of fact or an issue of mixed law and facts decided by a competent Court is finally determined between the parties and cannot be re-opened between them in another proceeding. The previous decision on a matter in issue alone is res judicata: the reasons for the decision are not res judicata. A matter in issue between the parties is the right claimed by one party and denied by the other, and the claim of right from its very nature depends upon proof of facts and application of the relevant law thereto. A pure question of law unrelated to facts which give rise to a right, cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue. When it is said that a previous decision is res judicata, it is meant that the right claimed has been adjudicated upon and cannot again be placed in contest between the same parties. A previous decision of a competent Court on facts which are the foundation of the right and the relevant law applicable to the determination of the transaction which is the source of the right is res judicata. A previous decision on a matter in issue is a composite decision: the decision on law cannot be dissociated from the decision on facts on which the right is founded. A decision on an issue of law will be as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 30 of 35 between the same parties, if the cause of action of the subsequent proceeding be the same as in the previous proceeding, but not when the cause of action is different, nor when the law has since the earlier decision been altered by a competent authority, nor when the decision relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the earlier proceeding, nor when the earlier decision declared valid a transaction which is prohibited by law."

27. Another judgment relied by the appellant is [(1999 5 SCC 590] 'Hope Plantations Ltd.' Vs. 'Taluk Land Board, Peermade & Anr.', wherein paragraph 31, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down following:

"31. Law on res judicata and estoppel is well understood in India and there are ample authoritative pronouncements by various courts on these subjects. As noted above, the plea of res judicata, though technical, is based on public policy in order to put an end to litigation. It is, however, different if an issue which had been decided in an earlier litigation again arises for determination between the same parties in a suit based on a fresh cause of action or where there is continuous cause of action. The parties then may not be bound by the determination made earlier if in the meanwhile, law has changed or has been interpreted differently by a higher forum. But that situation does not exist here. Principles of constructive res judicata apply with full force. It is the subsequent stage of the same proceedings. If we refer to Order XLVII of the Code (Explanation to Rule 1) review is not permissible on the ground "that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment"."

28. What was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case that if the issue which has been decided in an early litigation again arises for determination between the same party in a suit based on fresh cause of action, the parties may not be bound by determination on earlier. We have Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 31 of 35 already noticed the order dated 04.03.2024, which is a basis claimed by the appellant as giving fresh cause of action. We have already held that by order dated 04.03.2024 the resolution plan was remitted back for resubmission to the CoC which does not give any fresh cause of the action to the appellant hence, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the above paragraph does not come to any aid of the appellant.

29. To the same effect is another judgment relied by the appellant in 'Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.' Vs. 'BSK Realtors LLP & Anr.' [(2024 7 SCC 370]. Reliance has been placed on paragraphs 30, 31 & 32:

"30. A brief review of the ruling in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy [Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613] will also guide us to the resolution of the second issue on the applicability of res judicata. In the said decision, the first-instance court and the High Court rejected an application seeking fixation of standard rent, holding that the provisions of the Rent Act did not extend to open land, relying upon an earlier decision. However, this Court later overturned the said decision, affirming the applicability of the Rent Act to open land as well. When A filed a fresh application, B opposed it, claiming it was barred by res judicata.

31. Dismissing this argument and affirming the application's viability, a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court observed thus : (Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy case [Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613] , SCC pp. 617 & 619, paras 5 & 10-11) "5. But the doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure : it cannot be exalted to the status of a legislative direction between the parties so as to determine the question relating to the interpretation of enactment affecting the jurisdiction of a Court finally between them, even though no question of fact or mixed question of law and fact and relating to the right in dispute Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 32 of 35 between the parties has been determined thereby. A decision of a competent court on a matter in issue may be res judicata in another proceeding between the same parties : the "matter in issue" may be an issue of fact, an issue of law, or one of mixed law and fact. An issue of fact or an issue of mixed law and fact decided by a competent court is finally determined between the parties and cannot be re-opened between them in another proceeding. The previous decision on a matter in issue alone is res judicata : the reasons for the decision are not res judicata. A matter in issue between the parties is the right claimed by one party and denied by the other, and the claim of right from its very nature depends upon proof of facts and application of the relevant law thereto. A pure question of law unrelated to facts which give rise to a right, cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue. When it is said that a previous decision is res judicata, it is meant that the right claimed has been adjudicated upon and cannot again be placed in contest between the same parties. A previous decision of a competent court on facts which are the foundation of the right and the relevant law applicable to the determination of the transaction which is the source of the right is res judicata. A previous decision on a matter in issue is a composite decision : the decision on law cannot be dissociated from the decision on facts on which the right is founded. A decision on an issue of law will be as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, if the cause of action of the subsequent proceeding be the same as in the previous proceeding, but not when the cause of action is different, nor when the law has since the earlier decision been altered by a competent authority, nor when the decision relates to the jurisdiction of the court to try the earlier proceeding, nor when the earlier decision declares valid a transaction which is prohibited by law.

***

10. A question relating to the jurisdiction of a court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the court. If by an erroneous interpretation of the statute the court holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 33 of 35 would not, in our judgment, operate as res judicata. Similarly, by an erroneous decision if the court assumes jurisdiction which it does not possess under the statute, the question cannot operate as res judicata between the same parties, whether the cause of action in the subsequent litigation is the same or otherwise.

11. It is true that in determining the application of the rule of res judicata the court is not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the earlier judgment. The matter in issue, if it is one purely of fact, decided in the earlier proceeding by a competent court must in a subsequent litigation between the same parties be regarded as finally decided and cannot be reopened. A mixed question of law and fact determined in the earlier proceeding between the same parties may not, for the same reason, be questioned in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties. But, where the decision is on a question of law i.e. the interpretation of a statute, it will be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties where the cause of action is the same, for the expression "the matter in issue" in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure means the right litigated between the parties i.e. the facts on which the right is claimed or denied and the law applicable to the determination of that issue. Where, however, the question is one purely of law and it relates to the jurisdiction of the court or a decision of the court sanctioning something which is illegal, by resort to the rule of res judicata a party affected by the decision will not be precluded from challenging the validity of that order under the rule of res judicata, for a rule of procedure cannot supersede the law of the land."

(emphasis supplied)

32. The law, as we noticed aforesaid, aptly resolves the first issue. Res judicata, as a technical legal principle, operates to prevent the same parties from relitigating the same issues that have already been conclusively determined by a court. However, it is crucial to note that the previous decision of this Court in the first round would not operate as res judicata to bar a decision on the lead matter and the other appeals; more so, because this rule may not apply Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 34 of 35 hard and fast in situations where larger public interest is at stake. In such cases, a more flexible approach ought to be adopted by courts, recognising that certain matters transcend individual disputes and have far- reaching public interest implications."

30. The above judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated that when the cause of action is different, the earlier decision may not operate res judicata. There can be no dispute to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but coming to the fact of the present case, it is clear that there is no fresh cause of action to the appellant so as to debunk earlier proceeding initiated by the appellant seeking admission of its belated claim which were rejected upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

31. In view of the forgoing discussions and our conclusions, we are of the view that adjudicating authority did not commit any error in rejecting both the above IAs filed by the appellant. No grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned order. Appeals are dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson [Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) NEW DELHI 17th October, 2025 himanshu Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 171 - 172 of 2025 35 of 35

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal