Attempt To Seek Review Of Judgment By Filing Miscellanious Application Seeking Clarification : SC Imposes 10L Costs On Applicants

The Supreme Court imposed 10 Lakhs costs on applicants for attempting to seek review of a judgment under the garb of miscellaneous applications.

In this case, a Miscellanious Application was filed seeking clarification of a judgment. The applicant contended that the court had not dealt with the aspect of security of pledge of shares with EARC having been arbitrarily and illegally wiped out in the Resolution Plan and invocation/non­invocation of pledge of shares by EARC.

On perusing the applications, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed that they are an attempt to seek review of the judgment and order under the garb of miscellaneous application.

"We find that there is a growing tendency of indirectly seeking review of the orders of this Court by filing applications either seeking modification or clarification of the orders passed by this Court. In our view, such applications are a total abuse of process of law. The valuable time of Court is spent in deciding such applications which time would otherwise be utilized for attending litigations of the litigants who are waiting in the corridors of justice for decades together", the bench said.

The court thus imposed costs of Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees ten lakhs) each on the applicants.

In Ghanshyam Mishra vs EARC & Ors, the Supreme Court had held as follows:

1. Once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the creditors (including statutory authorities, employees and guarantors)
   
2. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan.
3. The amendment made to section 31 of the IBC is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which I&B Code has come into effect.
4. Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued.

Case details

Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons Private Limited vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 771 | M.A.NO.1166 OF 2021 | 17 August 2022 | Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha 

Headnotes

Practice and Procedure -  Growing tendency of indirectly seeking review of the orders by filing applications either seeking modification or clarification of the orders - A total abuse of process of law - The valuable time of Court is spent in deciding such applications which time would otherwise be utilized for attending litigations of the litigants who are waiting in the corridors of justice for decades together -10 Lakhs costs imposed on each applicants (Para 4-6)

Click here to Read/Download Order