Skip to main content

IBC : Restoration of withdrawn application is subject to agreement between parties

 Cause Title : IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs Nirmal Lifestyle Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 117 of 2023, NCLAT-Delhi

Date of Judgment/Order : 15/5/2023

Corum : Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson & Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

Citied: 

  1. Pooja Finlease v. Auto Needs (India) Pvt. Ltd., C.A. (AT) Ins. No. 103 of 2022, NCLAT- Delhi
  2. Himadri Foods Ltd. v. Credit Suisse Funds AG, C.A. (AT) Ins. No. 1060 of 2020
  3. Krishna Garg & Anr. v. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., C.A. (AT) Ins. No. 92 of 2021
  4. SRLK Enterprises LLP v. JALAN Transolutions (India) Ltd., C.A. (AT) Ins. No. 294 of 2021

Background

An application was filed before the NCLAT, under section 7 of I&B Code, 2016. Subsequently, a compromise being reached between parties, the compromise/consent term was placed on record before the Adjudicating Authority and the application was withdrawn. However, on the Respondent failing to honour the consent terms, the Appellant file an IA seeking revival of the Company Petition which has been rejected by Adjudicating Authority observing that when the Company Petition was withdrawn after settlement there is no specific provision anywhere in the Code for reopening of the Company Petition.

Hence this appeal.

Judgment

The NCLAT observed that it is an admitted position that the consent terms provided for settlement amount, payment plan as well as event of defaults. One of the events was, default in making payment of any of the tranches mentioned in th consent terms and it was also mentioned in the consent terms that in the event of default, the Appellant shall be entitled to revive the present Company Application or initiate any other action that may accrue to it under law and the appellant shall also be entitled to recover all expenses incurred in that regard.

A perusal of the order of the NCLT allowing withdrawal of the original petition indicates that a separate consent terms were executed between the parties and the consent term was brought on record along with the Application.

The NCLAT then analysed the judgments referred to by all parties including the Adjudicating Authority and concluded that :-

1) Pooja Finlease (supra) fully supports the submission of the Appellant.
2) Himadri Foods (supra) also supports the Appellant but was incorrectly read the AA.
3) Krishna Garg &  SRLK Enterprises (supra) referred to by the Respondents don't apply here as the consent terms were brought on record.

The NCLAT held that in the present case, consent terms were brought on record since they were part of the Application under Section 12A of the Code which was noticed in the Order of the Adjudicating Authority itself. When consent term itself contains clause for revival, non-giving liberty specifically for revival by the Adjudicating Authority is inconsequential.

When the consent term itself contemplates a clause for revival in event of default and default having been committed by the Corporate Debtor, rejection of revival is to deny the Financial Creditor rightful remedy. Non-mention of specific liberty in the Order is inconsequential in view of the clear terms in the settlement which was the basis of withdrawal of Company Petition.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more