Typographical Error Insufficient: NCLAT Rejects Section 94 Application

Typographical Error Insufficient: NCLAT Rejects Section 94 Application

Introduction

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has upheld the dismissal of a Section 94 application filed by the appellant, Saurabh Premprakash Chugh, against the State Bank of India. The application was rejected by the adjudicating authority, and the NCLAT agreed with the decision.

Factual Background

The appellant had filed a Section 94 application, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority due to contradictions in the dates of debt due and misrepresentation of facts. The appellant contended that there was a typographical error in the earlier application, and a fresh application was filed after correcting the error.

Procedural Background

The appellant had filed a previous application (CP No. (IB)-7) of 2025, which was dismissed by the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority dismissed the application, and the appellant filed a subsequent application, which was again rejected.

Contentions of the Parties

Appellant's Contentions:

• There was a typographical error in the earlier application, and the second application was filed to correct the error.
• The appellant submitted that the application was not barred by limitation and that the adjudicating authority had erred in dismissing the application.

Respondent's Contentions:

• The application was barred by limitation, and the appellant had suppressed facts to gain an interim moratorium.
• The adjudicating authority had correctly dismissed the application, and the NCLAT should uphold the decision.

Issues

The primary issue was whether the second application filed by the appellant was maintainable, given that the first application was dismissed on merits.

Reasoning & Analysis

The bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) observed that the first application was dismissed on merits, and therefore, the second application filed by the appellant was barred by the principle of Res Judicata. The NCLAT held that the fresh application correcting the typographical error was not maintainable.

Implications

This decision depicts the importance of Res Judicata in insolvency proceedings and the need for applicants to ensure that their applications are complete and accurate.

Outcome

The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the adjudicating authority's decision to reject the Section 94 application. The NCLAT found no error in the impugned order and held that the appeal was without merit. The order was passed on 23rd July 2025.

In this case the appellant was represented by Mr. Dhiren R. Dave, Advocate.