LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

  • In the case of Jose Samuel vs. M/s Royal International Trade and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. has rejected an application for the initiation of a CIRP (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) against the defendant- Royal International Trade and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the application was barred by the principle of res judicata enshrined in section 11 of CPC.
  • The petitioner Jose Samuel had filed an application under section 9 of IBC seeking an initiation of CIRP proceedings against the respondent company for the payment of the defaulted amount of Rs. 4,03,23,329.
  • The sister of the applicant filed an application for the initiation of CRIP against the respondent, but the application was rejected on the ground of privity of contract. Later the same was filed by the applicant through his power of Attorney holder.
  • However, the same was withdrawn by the power of attorney holder later, and thus, the applicant was forced to file the present application under section 9 of the IBC which states that the Operational Creditor can initiate the CRIP proceedings against the Corporate debtor after the expiry of 10 days from the date of delivery of the notice or the invoice demanding payment if the same has not been made.
  • The respondent had argued that the thumb impression of the appellant that has been taken has not been attested by any person in whose presence the same was taken, which casts serious doubts on the identity of the appellant.
  • The Tribunal held that the previous application which was filed by the power of attorney holder of the applicant and the present application are identical in the sense that both sought an initiation of CIRP proceedings against the respondent.
  • The applicant had withdrawn the previous application after it was served to the respondents because they knew that the same would not be decided in their favour. The same was allowed to be withdrawn with costs which goes to show that the tribunal was ready to hear their application and was ready to pass a final order.
  • The applicant did not pay the costs, but instead filed the present application, which is barred by res judicata.
  • Thus, in light of the aforesaid contentions, the application for the initiation of CIRP proceedings against the respondent was dismissed.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  58  Report



Comments
img
Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query