AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)
A very peculiar situation which is required to be considered by us, has emerged in this Company Appeal, owing to the chain of circumstances and because of the earlier order passed by us on 03.01.2025.
When the Appellant had preferred this appeal, the two orders were put to challenge i.e., the principal order of 28.03.2024 as passed in IA(IBC)/265/2023 and another order, being the order dated 23.09.2024 as it was passed in IA No.333/2024.
Owing to the fact that, the appeal was preferred only on 21.10.2024, the registry has reported that there is a delay of 177 days which has chanced in filing the appeal. On the contrary, it was argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the delay is to be computed w.e.f. 23.09.2024 i.e., the date of the order which was passed in IA No.333/2024. The order passed on IA No.333/2024 was nothing, but a clarification as sought by the Appellant to the Principal Order of 28.03.2024.
The procedure of seeking clarification of the principal order cannot be taken as to be a proceeding in continuation to the principal proceedings, which could grant leverage to the Appellant to seek exemption from limitation under the garb of challenging the subsequent order passed on a clarification application on 23.09.2024 because it is not a continuity of proceedings, and clarification should not be permitted to act as a substitute of review, which is not permissible under law.
Owing to the above, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant made the statement in the proceedings which were held before this Tribunal on 03.01.2025, that he would be confining the challenge to be given to the order of 23.09.2024, as rendered in IA No.333/2024, and on the basis of the instructions of the Appellant, he waived off his rights to put a challenge to the Principal Judgment dated 28.03.2024, meaning thereby there was a closure by choice of his opportunity to challenge the Principal Order of 28.03.2024 and that the challenge to the order passed on the clarification application since not being a continuity of proceedings, would be confined to be for the purposes of scrutinization of the order of 23.09.2024 only. The Appellant had preferred IA No.333/2024, wherein praying for the following reliefs: -
“In view of the foregoing, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass the following directions:
i)Issue clarification in order dated 28.03.2024 passed in IA(IBC)/265/2023 in TCP (IB)/32/7/AMR/2019 to the effect that the Respondents were directed to pay the amount covering the CIRP period as claimed in the Application to the Applicant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order;
ii) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case”.
The relief thus extracted above has been framed in a fashion that, it only seeks to enforce the directions issued by the Principal Judgment of 28.03.2024. In fact, the relief in IA No.333/2024, was not in any manner of seeking clarification of the Judgment of 28.03.2024 at all, and for the aforesaid reason we will have to extract the directions issued by the Judgment of 28.03.2024, by the Learned Adjudicating Authority which was of the following nature: -
“9.Therefore, in the light of my discussion as above, this Application is party allowed, by directing the Respondents to pay the amount covering the CIRP period as claimed in the Application to the Applicant, however without interest, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Rest of the claim is hereby rejected”.
If para 9 of the Impugned Order, which has been extracted above is read, it only asks the Respondents to pay the amount covering the CIRP period as claimed in the application, without interest, within 15 days from the date of the order. The remaining claim was rejected. If the relief granted in the Principal Order of 28.03.2024 is compared with the relief sought in IA No.333/2024, it is seen that application being IA No.333/2024 was not really for a clarification, rather it was an application for enforcement of the Judgment passed on 28.03.2024. Hence, the application itself preferred by the Appellant under the garb of seeking a clarification was misconceived and that was rightly rejected by the Learned Adjudicating Authority by the Impugned Order as rendered on 23.09.2024.
Thus, the order passed on IA No.333/2024, does not suffer from any apparent error calling for any interference, and hence the Company Appeal qua the Impugned Order dated 23.09.2024, as rendered on IA No.333/2024, lacks merit and the same is accordingly rejected.