Growing tendency to indirectly seek review under garb of clarification: Supreme Court imposes ₹20 lakh costs on parties

The Supreme Court recently came down on the trend of attempting to review of its judgments through miscellaneous application (MA) filed in the garb of seeking modifications and clarifications [Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt Ltd v Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors.]..A bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha imposed ₹10 lakh each as costs on two entities after noting that they had sought review of an April 2021 judgment through their MAs. "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 order stated.The costs imposed on the two applicants were ordered to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Welfare Fund and the Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates Welfare Fund..The first MA had been filed by the original respondent in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons Private Limited vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company (EARC) Limited.In that case, the top court had held that:A resolution plan duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 will mean that the claims provided in the resolution plan stand frozen, and will be binding on the creditors including statutory authorities, employees and guarantors; On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, claims not a part of resolution plan stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to the same; The amendment made to Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and is effective from the date the IBC was enforced ; Dues including statutory ones owed to the Union and State governments as well as local authorities, if not part of the resolution plan, are 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 can continueThe EARC then moved an MA for clarification towards the aspect of security of pledge of shares with EARC having allegedly been 'arbitrarily and illegally wiped out' in the Resolution Plan. It also drew attention to the invocation of the same and prayed that the National Company Law Tribunal's observations in this regard in 2019 be expunged, and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal be directed to not be influenced by the NCLT order in hearing its review. The second MA/intervention application was filed by Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Limited supporting EARC's MA. .Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan and Vikas Singh appeared for the applicants.Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the original appellant. [Read order]