11. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Vinita Palyekar, for the appellants submitted that both the grounds on which the Court below passed the impugned order were unsustainable. By referring to section 400 to section 411 of the aforesaid Act, it was submitted that under the said scheme, there was a clear distinction between the nature of objections raised under section 400 of the Act and the prayer for deletion made under section 402 thereof. It was submitted that the limitation applicable to the objections to be raised under section 400 of the Act could not be applied to an application filed under section 402 of the Act for deletion of the assets and that the Court below had committed a clear error of law in holding otherwise. On the question of res judicata, being made applicable to the said application filed under section 402 of the Act, it was submitted that the cause of action for filing such an application arose only after the order dated 4/1/2016 was passed including the property at “Carvatem” and other properties in the list of assets. In respect of the order dated 20/7/2018, passed by the Court dismissing the application at Exhibit 131, it was submitted that the said application merely stated that specific properties could not have even included in the list of assets in the absence of details of the source of title. Such an application, was not an application under section 402 of the Act for deletion of
