577

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be held to include within it a power to modify an award – THDC India Ltd Vs. M/s PCL-Intertech Lenhydro Consortium JV – Delhi High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be held to include within it a power to modify an award – THDC India Ltd Vs. M/s PCL-Intertech Lenhydro Consortium JV – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Judgment on principle of resjudicata under IBC – Doctrine of resjudicata is applicable even to the proceedings under IBC and challenge to the findings in incidental or collateral proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of Court – Vikas Dahiya (Ex-Director of Golden Tobacco Ltd.) Vs. Arrow Engineering Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that the Hon’ble Apex Court, recently held that doctrine of resjudicata is applicable to proceedings under IBC also in Ebix Singapore Pte Ltd. vs Committee Of Creditors Of Educomp (2021) ibclaw.in 153 SC held that the doctrine of resjudicata is applicable to the proceeding of IBC. In view of the principle laid down in the above judgment strictly doctrine of resjudicata is applicable even to the proceedings under IBC and challenge to the findings in incidental or collateral proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of Court. In any view of the matter, when the Appellant raised a specific ground before the Adjudicating Authority and before this Tribunal in the first round of litigation as narrated above, against the order passed by this Tribunal in judgment passed in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 183 of 2021, affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7715 of 2021 dated 05.05.2022, again raising such grounds in the second round of litigation in incidental proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of Court.
It also held that judgment obtained by playing fraud on the Tribunal or judgment or order passed without inherent jurisdiction is nonest in the eye of law and the same can be challenged in a collateral or incidental proceeding, but it was not the case of the Appellants in these appeals. Hence in any collateral or incidental proceeding, the judgment cannot be agitated which attained finality. If such course is permitted it would amount to exercise of power of review of its own judgment or sitting over the judgment in appeal against its own order or judgment which is impermissible under law.

Judgment on principle of resjudicata under IBC – Doctrine of resjudicata is applicable even to the proceedings under IBC and challenge to the findings in incidental or collateral proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of Court – Vikas Dahiya (Ex-Director of Golden Tobacco Ltd.) Vs. Arrow Engineering Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top