Fresh Application Correcting Typographical Error Is Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Application Was Dismissed On Merits: NCLAT New Delhi
Mohd.Rehan Ali
26 July 2025 5:10 PM IST
The present appeal has been filed against the adjudicating authority's order rejecting the section 94 application filed by the appellant. The adjudicating authority dismissed the application, noticing that a similar application (CP No. (IB)- 7) of 2025 filed by the applicant seeking the same relief had earlier been dismissed by it. The appellant contended that there was...
The present appeal has been filed against the adjudicating authority's order rejecting the section 94 application filed by the appellant. The adjudicating authority dismissed the application, noticing that a similar application (CP No. (IB)- 7) of 2025 filed by the applicant seeking the same relief had earlier been dismissed by it.
The appellant contended that there was certain typographical error in its earlier application hence the fresh application, CP (IB)-75(AHM)/2025, after correcting the error, was filed by it.
Dismissal of the applications by the Adjudicating Authority
The learned adjudicating authority dismissed the application and observed that the application contradicts various dates of debt due. This misrepresentation appears to gain the limitation period for filing the application. The applicant didn't reckon the original demand notice issued after default on 20.03.2017 and calculated the limitation from a subsequent period, which is wrong, misleading this Tribunal.
The adjudicating authority observed that the financial creditor has issued various demand and possession notices, while the first invocation demanding repayment of the loan is on 20.03.2017. It noted that the applicant has not submitted the guarantee documents and the copy of the first demand notice. And it has only filed the application to avail the interim moratorium. It observed that the applicant has suppressed the facts to take wrong advantage; hence, the application is liable to be dismissed. It was also observed that the application is barred by the limitation.
The appellant filed a subsequent application, which was again rejected by the adjudicating authority, noticing that the application was filed to gain an interim moratorium. Against this dismissal, the appeal has been preferred before the NCLAT.
Proceedings Before the NCLAT
The appellant contended that there was a certain typographical error in the earlier application; hence, the second application was filed.
However, the NCLAT observed that the first application was dismissed on merits. Therefore, the second application filed by the appellant u/s 94 of the IBC is barred by the Res Judicata.
Hence, the fresh application correcting the typographical error is not maintainable. Thus, there was no error in the impugned order, and the appeal is dismissed.
Case Name: Saurabh Premprakash Chugh v. The State Bank of India
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 718 of 2025
For Appellant: Mr. Dhiren R. Dave, Advocate.
For Respondents: None
Bench: Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical)
Order Date: 23.07.2025