Order date – 03 November 2022

 Facts –

• The Appellant’s, M/s. Murli Industries Ltd. resolution Plan was approved by learned National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) vide its order dated 3.7.2019. and some of the paragraphs of the said order were clarified by learned NCLT vide its order dated 22.7.2019 and appeal against the said order of NCLT was dismissed by the learned National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) vide order dated 24.1.2020 by upholding the order dated 22.7.2019 of learned NCLT.
• The appellant prayed for the refund of pre-deposit of the amount.

Issue – 

• Whether the appellant can claim pre-deposit refund of the amount?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that Resolution Plan for the appellant company was approved by Learned NCLT vide its orders dated 3.7.2019 and 22.7.2019. As per Section 31(1) of I&B Code, once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stake holders.
• Resolution Plan was approved by the learned NCLT vide its order dated 3.7.2019 and certain clarifications in some paragraphs of the order were made by the learned NCLT vide its order dated 22.7.2019. It is not disputed that the aforesaid order of learned NCLT has been upheld by the learned NCLAT vide its order dated 24.1.2020 therefore the conditions/terms as contained in the order of learned NCLT cannot be altered and are binding.
• The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Edelweiss ARC; (2021) 9 SCC 657, in appellant’s own case and it was held that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal. The same is accordingly abated in terms of Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
• As the appeal has already been abated therefore Tribunal held that the appellant cannot claim any refund before this Tribunal of any pre-deposit made by them before the Commissioner (Appeals), as the power which Hon’ble Supreme Court/High Courts can exercise are not available with this Tribunal. For that the appellants are at liberty to seek redressal before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
• Hence it is held that the appeal filed by the appellant herein has become infructuous and abated in terms of Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.