Case Law Details
Pooja Menghani Vs Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India (IBBI) & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
The recent case of Pooja Menghani vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) & Anr. before the Delhi High Court sheds light on the application of the principle of res judicata in matters concerning insolvency professionals.
The crux of the case revolves around an appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 8696/2022. The appellant contested the decision of the IBBI to reject her application for consideration as an Insolvency Professional (IP), citing her lack of being a “fit and proper person.” However, the Delhi High Court, in its judgment, upheld the decision of the IBBI, emphasizing that while the appellant may be eligible for consideration, the discretion lies with the IBBI to reject applications based on suitability criteria.
One of the significant arguments raised during the proceedings was the maintainability of the appeal itself. The respondent highlighted that the appellant had previously challenged the same impugned order before the Supreme Court via SLP (C) No(s). 4894/2024, which was subsequently withdrawn unconditionally. The Supreme Court’s order dismissing the SLP on 11th March 2024 further solidified the stance that the present appeal before the Delhi High Court is not maintainable due to the principle of constructive res judicata.
The application of res judicata, as enshrined in the legal doctrine, prohibits the re-litigation of issues that have been adjudicated upon by a competent court. In this context, the withdrawal of the SLP before the Supreme Court constitutes a final decision on the matter, precluding the appellant from seeking relief on the same grounds before a different forum.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s decision in Pooja Menghani vs. IBBI & Anr. underscores the significance of the principle of res judicata in maintaining judicial efficiency and finality of judgments. The dismissal of the appeal reaffirms the well-established legal doctrine that prevents parties from re-litigating matters that have already been conclusively determined. This case serves as a reminder for litigants to exercise diligence in pursuing legal remedies and to respect the sanctity of court decisions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 20th November, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 8696/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with the order dated 2nd May, 2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1/ IBBI and held that although the Appellant is eligible for consideration as Insolvency Professional (IP), the Respondent No. 1/ IBBI had the discretion to reject her application by citing “fit and proper person” as the reason.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent states that the present appeal is not maintainable as the petitioner had challenged the very same impugned order before the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No(s). 4894/2024. He points out that the said SLP had been dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally. The order dated 11th March, 2024, passed by the Supreme Court is reproduced hereinbelow:
“1. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) seeks permission to withdraw the present Special Leave Petition.
2. Permission as sought for is granted.
3. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
3. In view of the unconditional withdrawal of the SLP, this Court is of the view that the present appeal is not maintainable as it is barred on the principle of constructive res judicata. (See: Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M. P., Gwalior and Others, (1987) 1 SCC 5)
4. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Author Bio
